Search All Users Checkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys the broad-scope nature of the query (all users, optional date range), but does not state that the operation is read-only, how pagination/limits behave across users, or any rate or permission constraints. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states scope and the optional date filter with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 not be explained, and all three optional parameters are documented with defaults. For a read-only search tool this is nearly complete, with only the missing read-only/permission and pagination context as a minor gap.

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 limit, after_date, and before_date are already fully documented (including date format and inclusivity). The description only restates 'optional date range' and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (checkins) and emphasizes the cross-user scope ('across ALL registered users'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_user_checkins. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With get_user_checkins and get_checkin_detail among the siblings, the agent gets no routing help beyond the word 'ALL', leaving usage entirely to inference.

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