time_date_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses calendar-aware UTC math and business-day arithmetic (skipping weekends), which adds moderate context. However, it does not mention side effects (likely read-only), precision, or error 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 short and focused, with two sentences plus a reference to describe_tool. The 'Menu ID' phrase is slightly extraneous but does not significantly hinder readability. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with key information.

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 the complexity (8 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It provides high-level functionality but omits return values, parameter formats, usage examples, and error handling. It relies on describe_tool for completeness, making it incomplete on its own.

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 input schema has 8 required parameters with 0% schema coverage. The description mentions 'Add or subtract days, weeks, months and years from a base date' but does not explain the purpose of each parameter (operation, year, month, day, years, months, weeks, days) or their relationships, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the tool as a date calculator for adding/subtracting days, weeks, months, years with business-day arithmetic and calendar-aware UTC math. It uses specific verbs (add, subtract) and resource (date), distinguishing it from sibling tools like time_age_calculator or time_date_difference.

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 only a hint about business-day arithmetic and UTC math but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It directs to describe_tool for full guidance, but the description itself gives no usage context.

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