get_calendar_day

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the timezone handling, sorts results by effective time (scheduledFor if scheduled, publishedAt if published, submittedAt otherwise), and explicitly states it returns an empty array when no drafts exist (never 404). These details go beyond the schema and provide crucial operational context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage examples, then return behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff, making it an exemplar of conciseness and structure.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect: a full Draft[] sorted by effective time, empty array if no drafts, and the timezone context. With only three parameters, this covers all necessary operational details for successful 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'day' is interpreted in the workspace's timezone and by referencing that filters have the same semantics as list_drafts, which helps calibrate expectations. This goes beyond merely restating the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all drafts for a single calendar day' with timezone scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_calendar_week (single day vs. week) and list_drafts (day-specific vs. general listing).

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 provides explicit usage examples: 'what's going out tomorrow', 'show me Friday's posts', and 'inspect a specific date in the calendar.' It also notes that optional filters mirror list_drafts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to get_calendar_week for multi-day queries, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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