get_habit_compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the return value is a percentage between 0 and 100, which is helpful. It does not disclose computation details or error handling, but for a simple read operation with annotations, the description adds sufficient context.

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 that concisely conveys the essential information: what the tool returns, its range, the client context, and the date format. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well. It does not explain what happens if no data matches or if parameters are invalid, but for a straightforward query tool with good annotations, it is mostly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage on parameters. The description explains that the tool operates on a client over a date range and specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which adds value. However, it does not clarify constraints like startDate before endDate, boundary behavior, or the meaning of clientId beyond being required.

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 that the tool returns a habit compliance percentage (0-100) for a client over a date range. It specifies the resource (habit compliance), entity (client), and filter (date range). While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'recent_habit_activity', the purpose is distinct and 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_client_habits' or 'recent_habit_activity'. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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