resolve_date_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it reveals that computation happens server-side using precise current time, and documents the full return shape including expression, date_range, current_date and description. The only gap is error behavior — what happens when the expression is unsupported is never stated, despite the example showing a 'success' field.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the body is chunked with headers and numbered steps for scanability. It is verbose, however — the workflow section and the two worked examples partially duplicate each other — but given the 0% schema coverage, the extra length is justified compensation rather than bloat.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema but no annotations, everything an agent needs is present: the parameter's accepted grammar, the exact return contract, the recommended invocation context, and a chaining example. The only theoretical gap (failure modes) is negligible for a pure computation utility.

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 fully compensate, and it does: it enumerates every supported expression form — single day, week, month, recent-N-days, and dynamic N — in both Chinese and English. An agent has everything needed to format the 'expression' argument correctly without opening any other documentation.

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 opening line states a specific verb+resource: '将自然语言日期表达式解析为标准日期范围' (parse natural language date expressions into a standard date range). It is plainly distinct from all siblings — none of the 26 news/sentiment/crawl tools does date parsing — so no ambiguity with alternatives. The examples reinforce the single clear job.

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 explicitly marks itself '【推荐优先调用】' (recommended as priority call), justifies why (AI models computing dates themselves causes inconsistency), and lays out a numbered 3-step workflow showing exactly when to invoke it and how to chain the result into analyze_sentiment and search_news. The when-not case is implicit but complete because no sibling shares its function.

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