mess_get_extras_in_range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 'max 2 months' constraint on date range and the inclusive nature of dates. It also hints at authentication options (auth_key/session) though this is covered in schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter list, and return format. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the bullet-style parameter listing enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 tool's complexity (read-only list operation with date filtering), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON array of ExtraRegistration objects'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, constraints, parameters, and return type, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, but the description compensates by listing parameters (auth_key/session, from, to) and specifying date formats (YYYY-MM-DD). However, it does not fully explain parameter semantics beyond what's implied (e.g., auth_key vs session choice, date constraints). With 0% schema coverage, the description adds some value but leaves gaps, meeting the baseline for partial compensation.

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 specific action ('Get all extra registrations') with precise resource scope ('in a date range') and distinguishes from siblings like 'mess_get_registered_extras' or 'mess_list_extras' by specifying the date-range filtering. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'extra registrations' and constraint 'in a date range' provides unambiguous purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('in a date range') and includes an important constraint ('max 2 months, both inclusive'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., 'mess_get_registered_extras' for current registrations). The constraint helps guide usage but lacks explicit comparison to siblings.

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