get_daily_summary_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the core behavior: returning daily summary history over a trailing window of N days ending at a specified date. However, it does not clarify edge cases such as whether the end date is inclusive, what happens when end is null, or if there is a maximum N, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key date format detail. There is no filler or repetition, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only history tool.

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 an output schema and only two optional, self-explanatory parameters with defaults, so the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks explicit guidance on how to choose this over get_daily_summary and does not specify the exact semantics of 'up to end', leaving some room for misreading the range inclusiveness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'N days' to the days parameter and gives the end parameter's expected format as YYYY-MM-DD, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning or constraints of either parameter beyond what their names already suggest.

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 identifies the resource as 'daily summary history' and scopes it to 'the last N days (up to end, YYYY-MM-DD)', which distinguishes it from the singular get_daily_summary. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous for an agent.

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 phrase 'for the last N days (up to end, YYYY-MM-DD)' implies this is used for historical daily summary data, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus get_daily_summary or other history tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage guidance is only implied.

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