sezzle_get_interest_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful context: enrollment is a prerequisite, and the data is parsed and scaled to four decimal places. These are behavioral traits not captured in annotations, and they do not contradict them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence states what it does and at what scale, the second notes the prerequisite. No unnecessary information.

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?

The description is terse and mentions the key prerequisites and precision, but it leaves out what the activity data looks like or how pagination works via the offset parameter. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer return structure from the tool name alone. This is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (start_date, end_date, currency, offset). Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the prose, thereby missing the opportunity to clarify usage nuances.

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 gets and parses interest-account activity, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sezzle_get_interest_balance by focusing on activity rather than balance. The four-decimal scale detail adds specificity.

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 mentions that enrollment is required by Sezzle, which is a precondition for use, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like sezzle_get_interest_balance or settlement tools. No alternatives are named or excluded, so usage guidance is largely absent.

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