list_formations

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the default 60-day window, the 92-day maximum, the activity-code matching behavior, the matched_by field values, and the warning that titles appear under untrusted_member_text. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 the core purpose and date scoping, then explains matching behavior and return fields. The parenthetical list of course types is somewhat long but earns its place by clarifying what 'formation' means; overall it is dense but not bloated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully says returns share list_sorties fields, expose matched_by, and place titles under untrusted_member_text. It also points to get_sortie for detail. Minor gaps remain around limit and availability behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most important parameters: start_date/end_date defaults and format, the 92-day constraint, and include_other_activities semantics and default. It leaves limit, availability, and include_cancelled unexplained, so coverage is good but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the club's training courses') and defines scope precisely, including what counts as a formation and the date window. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to get_sortie for detail and describing how it overlaps with list_sorties fields.

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?

Gives clear operating context: default date range, the 92-day cap, and that get_sortie should be used for details. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_sorties or list_activities over this tool, but the formation/title-matching scope makes the intended use clear.

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