date_utils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of side effects (implicitly read-only but unstated), no output/return shape, no auth or rate-limit context. It only lists operation categories, which the schema already conveys.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource before the operation list. It is efficient, though the trailing enumeration is somewhat list-like rather than informative.

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 36-parameter mega-tool with six distinct operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It omits operation-to-parameter mapping, return formats, and sibling disambiguation that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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% across all 36 parameters, so the schema already documents each field, its enum, defaults, and formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names the resource (dates, times, timestamps) and enumerates the six operation families it covers (generation, validation, conversion, calculation, formatting, analysis), which maps cleanly onto the 'operacao' enum. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as calcular_idade or competencia_utils, which also deal with date computation.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all; the agent must infer selection from the 'operacao' enum values alone. Crucially, it never mentions that calcular_idade exists as a sibling for age calculation or when this general utility should be preferred over it.

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