Get my punch history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: automatic chunked fetching for long periods, a hard 366-day ceiling, and default omission of location and IP fields — all of which affect how results should be interpreted.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by behavior constraints in order of importance. The parenthetical Japanese terms add length but earn their place for matching against Japanese source data; only minor trimming is possible.

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 read-only, 2-param date-range tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (stamp types), how far back it can go (366 days, chunked internally), and what is filtered out (location, IP). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with format patterns and defaults, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces 'for a period', the today default, and the 366-day maximum, but adds no new semantics about the from/to relationship beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get your own punch history') and immediately enumerates the stamp categories returned (clock in/out, direct in/out, break start/end) with Japanese labels. An agent can distinguish this from get_today_status or get_working_records by the explicit 'for a period' framing and the 'your own' scoping.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Defaults to today' hints that the tool is for the current day when no args are given, and the 366-day cap signals planning considerations, but no sibling is named as an alternative or complement. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer get_today_status or get_working_records instead.

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