list_chore_occurrences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses input reference resolution, status values, and date format/inclusiveness. However, it omits details like whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, ordering, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each adding value: purpose first, then chore_id details, then status and date info. Front-loaded and efficient with no redundant sentences.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers essential input parameters and output statuses. It lacks mention of ordering or pagination, which are common for list endpoints, but overall it provides enough context for the tool's primary function.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains chore_id reference forms and resolution, date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and inclusive range. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about default values (null means no bound).

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists derived occurrences for a chore within a date window. The verb 'list' and resource 'chore occurrences' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_habit_occurrences and list_event_occurrences.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_calendar_events) might be more appropriate or when not to use this tool.

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