compare_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it lists output dimensions (auspiciousness, moon phase, etc.) and the effect of specifying activity, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any prerequisites, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff or unnecessary details.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the main return dimensions (auspiciousness, moon phase, festivals, zodiac) and the optional recommendation. It is complete for a comparison tool, though it omits error scenarios or edge cases like invalid dates.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning: it specifies the maximum array size (up to 10), notes that activity yields a recommendation, and implies culture defaults to 'chinese'. These details go beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 it compares multiple dates (up to 10) across dimensions like auspiciousness, moon phase, festivals, and zodiac. It distinguishes from siblings like check_auspicious_date (single date) and batch_check_dates (batch but not comparative). The verb 'compare' and resource 'dates' are specific and unambiguous.

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 suggests use for 'final decision-making between several good options', which provides context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context implies it is for comparing multiple options, distinct from single-date checks.

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