get_activities_by_date

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context by specifying date format and optional type. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as result ordering, pagination, error handling for invalid dates, or any rate limits.

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 with a brief sentence and an Args section. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by omitting the redundant parameter listing that mirrors the schema.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no enums, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and parameter details. However, it could mention edge cases or the expected output format (though output schema exists).

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates well by clearly explaining each parameter's format and providing an example for activity_type. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 the tool retrieves activities within a date range, optionally filtered by type. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activities and get_activity by specifying the date range and optional type filter.

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 implies usage for date-range queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activities or get_activity. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are provided.

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