Parse Birth Details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding behavior: it parses 'conservatively' (won't guess) and returns a 'missing' list of unparsed fields. With no output schema, this disclosure of the return contract is genuinely useful; it could go further on accepted input formats or how partial/ambiguous values are handled.

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, no filler. The extraction target list is front-loaded and the clarification rationale follows immediately, so an agent gets purpose and payoff in one pass.

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 single-parameter, read-only parser with no output schema, the description covers what is extracted, the conservative failure mode, and the shape of the return value (recognised fields plus a missing list). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the framing that the note is 'short' and free-form, which is a marginal gain over the schema's own example — baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb (extract/parse) and enumerates the exact resource fields (dob, tob, place, lat, lon, timezone) from a clearly scoped input (a short operator note). This separates it cleanly from the sibling calculators, which compute results rather than parse free text.

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 establishes clear context: it operates on a short operator note and is meant to precede clarification ('so the agent can ask the operator for clarification instead of guessing'). It stops short of explicitly naming when to call this versus the calculate_* siblings, so no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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