va_get_engagements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description identifies this as engagement/report data (implying a read operation), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose response format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the report is aggregate or raw session data. For a read-only report tool the absence of annotations is partially compensated by the 'report data' phrasing, but richer behavioral details would help.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the purpose with no filler. It front-loads the key information (what, what kind, scope). One could argue for slightly more detail given no annotations exist, but as written it's concise and free of waste.

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?

This is a relatively simple date-range report tool with just 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema. For tools in the VA family, there are siblings like va_get_transcripts and va_get_query_details that could overlap, and the description doesn't clarify the distinction. It's adequate but could note relationship to sibling reports or mention whether data is near-real-time or batched.

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 100% — both 'from' (Start date) and 'to' (End date) are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a date range' which aligns with the from/to parameters but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters fully.

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 'Get Zoom Virtual Agent engagement report data (bot conversation sessions) for a date range.' It names a specific verb (Get), resource (Zoom Virtual Agent engagement report data), and scoping (date range). It's distinguishable from siblings that handle articles, transcripts, phone call history, and sync, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool to contrast against.

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 implies this is used when retrieving bot conversation session engagement data for a date range, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't mention exclusions or differentiate from va_get_transcripts or va_get_query_details, which could be related. Some context is clear from the phrasing, but no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it.

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