search_bounded_tool

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses deterministic date interpretation (no LLM guessing) and that start/end accept multiple formats, but says nothing about permissions, result volume caps, or ordering behavior beyond pagination. An output schema exists, so return shape is covered elsewhere.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus the differentiator are front-loaded in the first line. Dense but readable; each sentence carries distinct 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and five of six parameters are meaningfully covered. The only real gap is what 'question' should contain and whether start/end defaults (empty strings) mean unbounded search.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: start/end formats (epoch or YYYY-MM-DD, local), allowed table values ('events'/'sessions'), and the role of limit/offset for pagination. It leaves the required 'question' parameter unexplained, assuming it is the keyword query.

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 specific verb+resource ('keyword search') with a distinguishing scope qualifier ('explicit time bounds, no LLM date guessing') and names the two searchable tables. It implicitly separates itself from search_sessions_tool/search_events_tool via the table parameter, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

'Use when you know the calendar window and need pagination via limit/offset' gives a clear positive trigger, and the 'no LLM date guessing' clause implies the alternative for fuzzy-date cases. It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming the sibling tool to use instead.

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