get_pet_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the default-range fallback and the warning that an unbounded query can return a very large response. It does not cover permissions/auth requirements or pagination, so it falls short of complete behavioral disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then immediately states the default-range behavior and the size risk in a single tight passage. There is no filler, though the sentence is long and could be split for scanability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent needs the description to explain return semantics and risk; it covers the aggregation nature and the large-response hazard. It leaves the shape of the aggregation (time bucketing, fields returned) unstated, which is a minor gap.

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, but the description adds real semantics: omitting both date params is valid and triggers a default range, which the schema only hints at via the 'must be given together' wording. It stops short of describing accepted formats beyond what the schema already 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get aggregated inside/outside activity stats for a pet over a date range') and pins down the granularity, which no sibling tool covers. 'The same data backing the app's activity view' further anchors what the tool actually returns, making it easy to separate from get_pet_details or list_devices.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: omitting fromDate/toDate yields the API default range, and an explicit range is preferred. However, it never contrasts this tool with alternatives or states when not to use it, so the guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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