get_submissions_by_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reveal non-obvious behavior: the Asia/Shanghai timezone default, YYYY-MM-DD date format, inclusion of both AC and failed submissions, and the 'current user' scope. However, it omits auth requirements, pagination behavior, and what happens with invalid or missing login.

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?

One dense sentence conveys the core action, scope, default date, timezone, format, and inclusion set with no filler. All content 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?

For basic use (just a date), the description plus schema defaults are sufficient. But with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description under-specifies pagination, filter values, and authentication-state behavior, so it is not fully complete for advanced invocation.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning for date (default, timezone, format) and timezone, but says nothing about limit, cursor, status, or language, leaving most parameters semantically underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取'/'get'), identifies the resource (current logged-in user's LeetCode China submissions), and scopes it to a calendar date. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auth_status, get_problem, login, and logout.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool targets the current logged-in user and defaults to Asia/Shanghai today. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but there are no directly competing siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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