get_on_this_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get historical events') but omits details such as rate limits, response format, or behavior on invalid/unsupported dates. The description adds no warning or context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. The structure front-loads the purpose and then efficiently documents parameters.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, which could impact tool selection. It also lacks context such as date range validity, error behavior, or authentication needs. For a simple historical events tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer expected outputs.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies the date format (MM/DD) and default (today), lists all type enum values with their meanings, restricts project to 'wikipedia' only, and enumerates supported languages. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter's allowed values and defaults.

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's purpose: 'Get historical events from Wikimedia for a date.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'historical events' are specific. The name 'get_on_this_day' further clarifies the context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_featured' (featured content) and 'search_content' (full-text search) by focusing on historical events for a single date.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, expected date ranges, or limitations. The description only lists parameters without explaining the appropriate context for use.

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