list_extras_in_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses auth behavior via the API key fallback to MESS_API_KEY, inclusive date handling, and the 2-month maximum range. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and no hidden mutation or side-effect is suggested.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the Args block adds exactly the format, inclusivity, and fallback details an agent needs. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

For a simple filtered-list tool with an output schema already available, the description covers the invocation contract completely: high-level return scope, range limit, all parameter formats, and authentication fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 is the only meaningful source of parameter semantics. It fully documents all three parameters: YYYY-MM-DD format, inclusive behavior for both dates, and the api_key default/fallback. This goes well beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('extra registrations'), and a clear scope ('within a date range ... max 2 months'). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_available_extras and list_registered_extras because it targets registrations over a time interval, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 the usage context: call this when you need extra registrations for a date range, capped at 2 months. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names, so an agent must infer how it differs from the other extras listing tools.

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