validate_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the validation rule but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message) or what happens on invalid input. The agent is left unclear about the tool's output behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the critical format constraint. Every word contributes to the meaning; no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain the return value/behavior. It does not, leaving a notable gap. The agent cannot predict what 'validate' actually outputs. The bare minimum is provided.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states 'Date string in YYYY-MM-DD format.' The tool description repeats the same format constraint, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Validate a date string.' It specifies the exact format requirement, which also differentiates it from any sibling tools that handle dates. The verb 'validate' is specific and the resource is clearly defined.

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: use this tool when you need to check if a date string is in YYYY-MM-DD format. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, though no date-related sibling tools exist. There is no guidance on when to use it in a broader workflow.

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