list_day_partings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('List all'), which is safe, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or account scoping. The parenthetical adds domain context but not operational transparency.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, plus a concise parenthetical. There are no wasted words or redundant information.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately states its purpose and what it returns (a list of all day parting rules). It could be slightly more explicit about the response format or scope, but the simplicity of the tool and sibling context make it sufficient.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both limit and offset parameters. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'List' and resource 'day parting rules', with a clarifying parenthetical 'time-of-day targeting'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_day_parting (which retrieves a single rule) and create/update/delete operations.

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 'List all' implies the primary use case is to retrieve every day parting rule. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tool names and the 'all' scope make the context clear. No exclusions are stated, but explicit comparison to get_day_parting would have pushed it to a 5.

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