list_available_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses '查看' (view) and '列出' (list), implying a read-only operation, and details the 'both' source behavior that compares local and remote availability. It does not discuss edge cases like unavailable remote sources or performance, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

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-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is succinct, front-loads the purpose, and includes only relevant details. No redundant or extraneous content exists.

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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the operation, parameter semantics, return format (JSON with comparison), and provides examples. The presence of an output schema means detailed return fields need not be repeated in the 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 provides only a type and default for 'source' with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by enumerating the allowed values ('local', 'remote', 'both'), explaining their meanings, and giving examples. This is essential and well-executed parameter 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 description clearly states the tool's function: '列出本地/远程可用的日期范围' (list available date ranges for local/remote) and '查看本地和远程存储中有哪些日期的数据可用' (view which dates have data available). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_date_range or get_storage_status.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to check available date ranges from local/remote storage) through its purpose statement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should be avoided, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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