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 that the tool lists and compares date availability from different sources, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness) or what '对比结果' (comparison results) entail. It adds some value but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Examples). Each sentence adds value, though the first two sentences are somewhat redundant. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and examples. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or data scope.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'source' parameter with three options ('local', 'remote', 'both') and their semantics, including the default value. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't detail format or constraints beyond the enum-like options.

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: '列出本地/远程可用的日期范围' (list available date ranges from local/remote storage). It specifies the verb (list/view) and resource (date ranges), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve_date_range' or 'compare_periods'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 context by mentioning '本地和远程存储' (local and remote storage) and provides examples with different source values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_storage_status' or 'resolve_date_range'. Usage is implied but not clearly defined relative to siblings.

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