attendance_passages_by_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only bulk retrieval operation and confirms the scope ('all... recorded on a given date'), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or any limits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, target resource, and scope efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It identifies the resource and the date parameter sufficiently, though it does not describe what the returned passages look like.

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% and the only parameter, date, is already fully documented with format and meaning. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond referring to the date contextually, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('all RFID/physical access passages') and a precise scope ('recorded on a given date'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by date and by the passage-by-id tool.

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 when to use the tool: whenever all passages for a date are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like attendance_passage_by_id for individual passages.

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