List digests

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: cursor pagination with no total (only has_more/next_cursor), and lists specific error types (invalid_parameter, invalid_cursor, unauthorized, rate_limited). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states core function, second paragraph lists filters, third provides chaining guidance and errors. No waste—every sentence 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?

With 5 parameters, no required fields, an output schema present, and sibling tools, the description covers pagination behavior, filtering, usage advice, and errors. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that from/to are inclusive bounds on period_start and reminding that cursor is opaque from previous response. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 wraps GET /digests and returns cursor-paginated weekly digests (LLM summaries). It distinguishes itself from list_activities (no total in pagination) and list_latest_digests (one-shot), making the tool's specific verb+resource and scope very clear.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when paging backward through history, or filtering to one competitor') and when to prefer list_latest_digests ('for 'what happened last week across all competitors''). This provides clear context and alternatives.

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