Omiss Checkin History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses newest-first ordering and a 100-match cap on omiss.net, but does not mention permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether filters combine in a specific way.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and ordering before giving filters and the 100-match cap.

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 five optional filters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, filter dimensions, ordering, and result cap. It could add minor context about combining filters or expected result shape, but the output schema handles return values.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 (List) and resource (past OMISS nets), with additional scope: newest first and optional filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as omiss_net_checkins or omiss_net_statistics, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 through its filter list and 'all of them' phrasing, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and never names a sibling tool. An agent must infer that this is the history-listing tool rather than a current check-in or statistics tool.

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