dawarich_find_visits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a search/query operation ('Find') and identifies the filtering dimensions (time, status). However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination behavior, whether date ranges are inclusive, or what status values are accepted. These gaps limit transparency beyond the basics.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no filler, and every word contributes to the core meaning. This is an example of concise, effective writing.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the description is minimal and omits guidance on pagination, parameter relationships, and when to use this over alternatives. It covers the fundamental purpose but leaves meaningful gaps in a complete picture.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps 'time' to start_at/end_at and 'status' to status, adding semantic meaning to these core filters. However, it completely ignores the pagination parameters (page, per_page), leaving them without explanation. This partial compensation warrants a moderate score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), names the resource ('Dawarich visits'), and specifies the scope ('by time and status'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_visit or find_points, which have different actions or resources.

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 searching for visits filtered by time and/or status. It provides clear context for the primary use case, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. The lack of an explicit 'use this instead of X' prevents a 5, but the filtering criteria give adequate guidance.

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