list_habit_occurrences

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

With no annotations, the description adds some transparency by noting habit_id resolution and date inclusivity. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, pagination, or idempotency, leaving gaps that an agent needs to infer.

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 description is concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. It uses clear formatting for parameter details and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It thoroughly covers parameter behavior and usage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., default date range behavior), but overall it is complete enough for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant semantic value: it explains that habit_id accepts various reference forms (UUID, sequence shorthand, canonical ref, URL) and that dates must be YYYY-MM-DD with inclusive range. This goes well beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 'List occurrences for a habit in a date window,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also clarifies that habit_id accepts multiple reference forms, making the tool distinct from siblings like list_chore_occurrences or 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?

The description explains how habit_id and dates should be provided, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools, the resource differentiation is implicit, but explicit usage guidelines would improve clarity.

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