simpleinout_list_user_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the read operation and the API endpoint, and notes required inputs. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or potential errors. With an output schema present, the description adds moderate value.

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 and well-structured, using a summary line, the API endpoint, and a clean args list. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It gives the purpose, endpoint, and parameter details. It lacks minor context like authentication or pagination, but these are not critical for this simple list operation. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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% (no descriptions in the schema properties). The description compensates by fully explaining both parameters: user_id is 'The user's ID' and created_at is a 'Date/time range filter' with an example format. This is essential and adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('specific user's status history'), and the scope ('within a date range'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_statuses and list_my_statuses by emphasizing 'specific user' and date range.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a specific user's status history within a date range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the wording effectively differentiates it from sibling tools. Context is clear, but explicit exclusionary guidance is missing.

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