Recent conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it names the returned fields (date, person, channel, one-line note) and the sort order (newest first), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting truncation, pagination, or whether results are scoped to the caller.

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 stating scope, then the returned fields in a compact parenthetical and the ordering at the end. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and ordering the agent would otherwise lack. It omits result limits and whether the log is scoped to the requesting user, which are the only notable gaps.

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% (gun is documented as 'Number of days to look back' with min/max bounds), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's 'last N days' phrasing restates the same idea without adding format or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete resource (contacts logged in the last N days) plus the fields returned and the ordering, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, bu_hafta (the fixed 7-day variant), which an agent could easily confuse with this parameterized one.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bu_hafta or kisi_ara, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit 'last N days' window, which the agent must infer from the parameter default.

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