current_month

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with status and month fields, which adds context beyond the basic purpose. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, uses system time, or has any rate limits, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured returns section. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the output format without unnecessary details, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 low complexity (0 parameters), high schema coverage (100%), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the returns section), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and the return values, which suffices for this simple utility tool without needing annotations.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('name of the current month'), and distinguishes it from siblings like current_day or current_year by focusing exclusively on the month. It's not a tautology of the name 'current_month' as it elaborates on what exactly is returned.

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 by specifying what it returns (the current month's name), which helps differentiate it from siblings that return dates, times, or years. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like current_date or formatted_datetime, so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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