get_visits

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and describes the return fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention default date ranges, status filtering behavior, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous information. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description specifies return fields, which helps, but it omits the status filter and default date behavior, and it doesn't explain how this relates to sibling tools. It is adequate for a simple retrieval but has clear gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning PSW and client filters, but it does not map these to parameter names or explain the status and date parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool retrieves visits within a date range, with optional filters for PSW or client, and specifies returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_psw_schedule. However, the phrase 'scheduled visits' is potentially misleading because the status filter includes completed, missed, and cancelled, suggesting all visits rather than only status=scheduled.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_psw_schedule or analyze_schedule_travel. There are no exclusions or recommended contexts, making it hard for an agent to select among siblings.

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