get_fbl_report_by_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving a significant gap beyond the annotations.

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 line with only an endpoint and a note about Python SDK parity. While concise, it is under-specified and lacks the structure expected for a tool description, providing little substance beyond the name and schema.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the FBL report is, what data it returns, how pagination works, or any other essential context. The description is fundamentally incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides adequate semantics for each parameter.

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 gives the HTTP method and endpoint path but does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves a feedback loop (FBL) report for a date range. The resource path 'report/fbl' and required date_from/date_to parameters imply this, but the description alone lacks a clear verb and scope, making it only moderately clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_fbl_report_by_issue or get_unsubscribe_by_date. The description merely cites an SDK parity note, which does not provide situational context or exclusions.

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