get_annunciator_by_date

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it adds almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens when no message exists for the date, or any auth/rate considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the intent is restated three times ('Get annunciator message...', 'Retrieve what was displayed...', 'Returns annunciator message data...') and the keyword string 'annunciator, chamber display, historical activity' adds filler. Tighter phrasing would lose no information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, and both parameters are documented with examples. Given the simplicity of a two-param readonly lookup, coverage is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (empty results, pagination) is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well: it gives concrete annunciator values ('CommonsMain' or 'LordsMain') and specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which the schema does not. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't say whether the annunciator value is case-sensitive or validated against a fixed set.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('annunciator message') scoped to a chamber and date, so the resource and operation are unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings like happening_now_in_commons/happening_now_in_lords, which cover similar annunciator-board content, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'historical activity' and 'what was displayed on the annunciator board for a given date' implies this is for retrospective lookups rather than current display, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.