get_people_updates_by_start_date

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: start_date is UTC-based, limit has endpoint-specific defaults and maximums, omitted pagination applies a low default, and higher limits are clamped rather than rejected. This gives the agent concrete expectations for pagination behavior.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose before listing arguments. The pagination explanation is somewhat verbose but provides genuinely useful clamping and default behavior. The format is scannable and does not repeat schema titles unnecessarily.

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 and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the endpoint, all parameters, and pagination quirks. Still, it lacks usage differentiation from siblings and leaves extended and date-format semantics underspecified, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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. It names all four parameters and adds some meaning, especially for limit and start_date. However, the extended parameter is only described as "Extended information to include in the response," which does not explain what values are accepted or what behavior it enables, and start_date lacks an explicit date format.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: "Get recently updated people," and includes the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling get_people_updates_id_by_start_date, so an agent must infer the difference between fetching full people objects versus IDs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_people_updates_id_by_start_date or the movies/shows variants. It does not state when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or what scenarios favor a sibling tool.

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