Get personal records

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: deterministic ordering (newest first, undated last), the activity_id linkage, and the two-request-then-cached cost profile. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot supply.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then routing, then cost. Efficient overall, though the "which get_activity opens" clause is slightly compressed and the request-count sentence reads as jargon.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description still gives ordering, linkage, and cost context. Nothing needed to invoke this zero-param tool correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema has nothing to describe. The note that activity-borne records carry an activity_id adds output-field meaning but does not change the parameter story.

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?

Starts with a specific verb ("List") and resource ("personal record"), scopes it to the whole account, and conveys shape (named, in units) so it is clearly distinguishable from get_trend or get_activity.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: activity-borne records point to get_activity via activity_id, and range-based metric questions point to get_trend. The agent knows when this tool is the right call and when it is not.

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