get_registrations_by_date_range

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('get'), but does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, filtering behavior, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but it provides minimal behavioral detail beyond the implicit non-mutating nature of 'get'.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. There is no extraneous text, and the essential information is front-loaded. It is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for an agent to understand its primary purpose. However, it lacks details on return value, potential error conditions, or how it relates to similar tools like get_weekly_registrations. A brief note on response structure or use case would improve completeness, but for a minimal read tool, it is acceptable.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with format. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles semantics effectively, and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 action (get) and the resource (time registrations) with a specific scope (between two dates). It is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_weekly_registrations, though the date-range qualifier implicitly distinguishes it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_weekly_registrations or get_timesheet_status. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the parameter names (date range) but not explicitly stated.

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