get_activities_by_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses inclusive date range, date format, count limits (1-200, default 50), and required parameters. This is adequate, though it could mention ordering or what happens if no activities found.

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?

The description is extremely concise, using a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. The main action is clear from the first sentence.

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 an existing output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers all parameters, constraints, and format. Minor gaps: absence of ordering (likely descending by date) and pagination behavior beyond count could be added, but overall it's quite 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: after/before are inclusive start/end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format, count is max activities 1-200 default 50. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Get activities within a specific date range', providing a clear verb ('Get'), resource ('activities'), and scope ('date range'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_recent_activities' or 'get_activities_by_type'.

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?

The description defines when to use the tool (for activities in a date range) and includes format constraints (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive). It does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes the purpose sufficiently clear.

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