Icu Get Activities By Date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: results are newest-first, a window exceeding limit drops the oldest first, and widening limit or narrowing the window is required to reach the very oldest records.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with the sibling distinction and truncation caveat. Every sentence contributes operationally useful information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 that annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description provides the remaining selection-critical context: date-window semantics, ordering, limit behavior, truncation direction, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented structurally. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for the key parameters: the window is oldest..newest, dates are YYYY-MM-DD, limit governs truncation, and truncation drops oldest records first.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List activities") together with the exact scope ("EXPLICIT date window") and output shape ("LIGHT summary per item"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling icu_get_recent_activities by contrast in anchoring and cap behavior, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: icu_get_recent_activities is for today-anchored recent history capped at 100, while this tool is for arbitrary historical windows. It also gives concrete use cases such as reconstructing training history and finding the oldest activity in a period.

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