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 burden — and it does so well. It discloses server-side computation with the precise current time, the consistency guarantee, a complete return structure (success, expression, date_range, current_date, description), and the supported expression categories. The only gap is undefined behavior for unsupported/ambiguous expressions, which prevents a 5.

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?

Well-structured with clear headers (为什么/推荐使用流程/Args/Returns/Examples) and the priority call front-loaded. The three worked examples are somewhat repetitive and could be trimmed, and the overall length is generous for a single-parameter tool — but structure ensures scannability 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 single-parameter tool this is complete: the expression contract, return format, and cross-tool integration are all documented. Since an output schema exists, the return values need no additional explanation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — the schema only declares 'expression' as a string. The description fully compensates by enumerating supported formats across four categories (单日, 周, 月, 最近N天, 动态) with concrete examples in both Chinese and English. It also explains the downstream contract: the return value feeds the date_range parameter of other tools.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource statement — '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 standard date ranges). It distinguishes itself from every sibling by uniquely addressing date parsing, and reinforces its distinct value with the '为什么需要这个工具' section (server-side consistency across models). No sibling overlaps this function.

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 it as '推荐优先调用' (recommended priority call) and provides a step-by-step recommended flow: user gives natural language → call resolve_date_range → feed the returned date_range into analyze_sentiment or search_news. Worked examples tie it to sibling tools concretely. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with no ambiguity.

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