cards_reviewed_by_day

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

No annotations provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states the return format but omits behavioral traits such as date range, sorting, timezone handling, or whether it returns all days versus only days with reviews.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler words; every part is meaningful.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description lacks some context like the default date range (all days? today?). However, for a simple aggregation tool, it is nearly complete.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by specifying the output format, which is not in the schema. For zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it returns review counts per day as pairs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cards_reviewed_today' (single count for today) and 'get_reviews_of_cards' (detailed reviews). The verb 'return' and resource 'review counts per day' make the purpose specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention that it aggregates data, or that it is suitable for trend analysis, nor does it contrast with similar tools like card_reviews or get_reviews_of_cards.

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