list_available_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with date lists and comparison) and the 'both' option that compares local and remote. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any side effects, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise without unnecessary fluff, though the examples and formatting make it slightly longer than strictly needed. Front-loading the purpose in the first line is effective.

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?

Given a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (as indicated by context), the description provides enough information for correct invocation: it explains the parameter, default behavior, and result format. It lacks detailed return field descriptions but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 has no descriptions for the 'source' parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully explains the three allowed values ('local', 'remote', 'both') and the default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, so the high score is justified.

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 purpose: lists available date ranges from local and remote sources. It specifies the resource (date availability), the action (list), and contrasts with siblings like get_news_by_date or resolve_date_range by focusing on availability rather than content or resolution.

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 and provides examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_date_range or get_news_by_date. It implies usage for checking date availability, but lacks explicit 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.