list_available_dates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and reveals substantial behavior: it details how source values affect output, includes the 'configured' flag for remote, and explains the comparison logic. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or cover error cases, but the nature of listing makes it implicit.

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 clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is somewhat verbose but every section adds value, especially the return structure and examples, making it efficient despite its length.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides complete context: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format in detail, and usage examples. It also mentions the remote configuration state, which is helpful for the agent to interpret results.

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 zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each allowed value of 'source' with its meaning and default, and provides examples showing different invocations. This is more than enough for the agent to understand and use the parameter correctly.

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 starts with a clear verb phrase '列出本地/远程可用的日期范围' (list available local/remote date ranges), specifying the action and resource. It further explains the tool's role in understanding data coverage and sync status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_news_by_date or resolve_date_range.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to understand data coverage and sync status) and explains the source parameter options. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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