get_transactional_results_by_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that the operation is read-only and maps to a SOAP method. It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, return shape, or how date boundaries are treated, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The SOAP operation name is repeated twice, wasting the only space allocated while core information is absent.

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 3-parameter SOAP-backed retrieval with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits parameter semantics, date-range behavior, return contents, and usage context. It is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them (dFromDateAndTime, dToDateAndTime, eMessageStatus). The agent gets no explanation of date formatting, boundary inclusivity, or the status enum values.

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 essentially restates the tool name by naming the underlying SOAP operation (GetSingleMessagesResultsBetweenDatesEx), which is a tautology rather than a plain-language statement of what the tool does. It never explains in agent-facing terms that this retrieves transactional message results within a date range, nor distinguishes it from siblings like get_transactional_results_by_id or get_campaign_results_by_date.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when to prefer get_transactional_results_by_id or get_campaign_results_by_date, or what prerequisites exist. The definition provides no routing information at all.

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