list_sorties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: the 92-day window cap, the default date range, oldest-first ordering, the exact definition of places_left (confirmed participants only, pending requests not deducted), and a prompt-injection warning on untrusted_member_text. It does not mention pagination or a default limit behavior, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 scope and read-only statement, then presents filters as a scannable bullet list and return fields in one closing sentence. Dense but every clause (defaults, caps, places_left semantics, untrusted-text warning) carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the returned fields (id, activity, date, start/end, price_eur, availability, url, untrusted_member_text contents), which is more than adequate for an 8-parameter listing tool. The only incompleteness is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the absence of pagination guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden and largely does: date format and defaults, activity code examples with fuzzy matching note, difficulty as case/accent-insensitive substring with examples and the caveat that difficulty only exists for upcoming outings, the five availability values with definitions, search as title substring, and include_cancelled. Only 'limit' is left undocumented, a small omission against seven well-explained parameters.

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 collective outings'), the scope (starting between start_date and end_date), the ordering (oldest first), and the read-only nature. It is immediately distinguishable from get_sortie (detail view) and list_activities (activity codes), both of which it names.

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 the agent: use this for filtered listing, 'Call get_sortie for everything else', and consult list_activities for activity codes. It also states date-window constraints (at most 92 days, years up to next year + 1) that govern when the call will succeed.

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