get_activities_fordate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read ('Get') but does not describe the return shape, pagination, date inclusivity, or any other runtime behavior. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a clean Args block for the parameter. Every element earns its place without redundancy.

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 present, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: the operation, the resource, and the date format. It lacks sibling differentiation and behavioral detail, but the low complexity and output schema reduce the burden.

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%, but the description compensates by specifying the exact date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which is the key semantic information for the single required parameter. It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Date' title.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('activities') scoped to a date. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_activities_by_date, which appears to serve a nearly identical purpose.

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 a specific date' implies this tool is for date-scoped activity retrieval, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_activities, get_activities_by_date, or count_activities. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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