get_training_status_monthly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool returns training status for the last month and hints at an end-date boundary with format 'YYYY-MM-DD'. It does not disclose what happens when the optional 'end' parameter is null, or whether the month is a calendar month versus a rolling 30-day window.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key scoping ('last month') appears first. The parenthetical 'up to end, YYYY-MM-DD' is somewhat awkward but still compact and informative.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description covers the basic call intent and date format. It leaves two gaps: the exact meaning of 'last month' and the behavior when 'end' is omitted or null. These are notable but not severe for a low-complexity read tool.

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 schema provides no description for the 'end' parameter, so the description's mention of 'YYYY-MM-DD' and 'up to end' adds meaningful format and boundary semantics. However, it does not explain the parameter's default/null behavior or whether the end date is inclusive, leaving part of the semantic burden unaddressed.

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 ('training status') and the temporal scope ('last month'), and the tool name plus 'monthly' distinguishes it from get_training_status_daily and get_training_status_weekly. It does not explain what 'training status' contains, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 'last month' gives an implied usage context for when this tool is relevant, and the sibling names signal daily/weekly/monthly options. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_training_status_daily or get_training_status_weekly, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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