get_mile_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that records are returned as activity cards with selected fields, includes pagination details (starting_index, page_size with server cap ~50), and describes filtering (search_string). While it does not explicitly mention authentication or rate limits, it is fairly transparent for a read operation.

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 starts with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by parameter docs in a bullet-like format. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though a bit verbose. Each sentence adds value, but minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown in detail), so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters, pagination, and filtering. It lacks explicit error handling or exact output format details, but is otherwise complete for the use case.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description provides detailed semantics for all 7 parameters: data types, defaults, inclusive date format YYYY-MM-DD, allowed values for sort_direction ('asc'/'desc'), and usage notes (server caps page_size ~50, optional account). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it returns AAdvantage mile/loyalty-point transaction history with specific fields (date, type, miles earned/used, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_summary or get_loyalty_points_progress, which cover summaries or progress rather than detailed transaction history.

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 for retrieving transaction history in a date range, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The sibling list provides indirect context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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