list_available_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool queries local and remote storage and returns a JSON comparison, but it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, whether it triggers any network calls, or whether it caches results. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 well-organized into summary, args, returns, and examples. There is slight redundancy between the first line and the second line, but the content is front-loaded and every section earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to call it, and what it returns. The main gap is that it does not clarify how the 'remote' source differs behaviorally from 'local' in terms of latency or failure modes, but this is minor given the examples and return description.

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?

The schema only declares a string parameter with a default, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by enumerating the three valid values ('local', 'remote', 'both'), explaining what each does, and showing usage examples. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs.

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 the tool lists available date ranges from local and remote storage, using a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('本地/远程可用的日期范围'). This distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_date_range or get_news_by_date, which focus on other date-related operations.

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 explains the source parameter values and provides examples, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as resolve_date_range or get_storage_status. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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