query_habit_checkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Queries" implies a read, but nothing states whether the result is paginated, aggregated per habit, capped, or what happens with empty ranges. For a multi-parameter retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's three required parameters.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain what comes back and how results are shaped, and it does neither. For a required-parameter query tool, an agent cannot tell whether check-ins come grouped by habit, as a flat list, or with counts.

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% — from/to carry format examples ("2026-01-01") and habitIds is documented in the schema — so the baseline is 3. The description's "date range" phrasing maps onto two of the three params but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and never mentions habitIds.

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?

States a clear verb ("Queries") and resource ("habit check-in records") with the scope ("over a date range"). However, it does not distinguish this from any sibling tool — the sibling list contains many list/query tools (list_habits, list_completed_tasks) and nothing routes the agent here versus elsewhere.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for retrieving historical check-in data rather than, say, creating check-ins.

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