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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (returning current date or calculating relative dates) but lacks important details: format of returned date, timezone handling, error behavior for invalid inputs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't disclose these behavioral traits.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently explain the tool's functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with usage details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., date string structure), error handling, or timezone considerations. For a date-handling tool with 1 parameter, more contextual details are needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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%, with the parameter 'date' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the two types of inputs (absolute dates like 2025-05-29 and relative units like yesterday), which complements the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states.

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: '获取当前日期' (get current date) and explains it returns the current date or calculates relative dates like yesterday/tomorrow. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_current_weather' by focusing on dates rather than weather. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool in the description text itself.

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: when users need current date or relative date calculations. It mentions handling both absolute dates (e.g., 2025-05-29) and relative units (e.g., yesterday). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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

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 mentions 'Get weather info' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, data freshness, or what 'weather info' includes (e.g., temperature, humidity). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'weather info' includes, potential errors, or any operational constraints. For a tool with one parameter but undefined output and behavior, this leaves too much ambiguity for reliable agent use.

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%, with the parameter 'city' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool requires a city input, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('weather info') with a specific scope ('for a given city'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_date', though the distinction is obvious from the names.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any contextual prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without indicating any constraints, dependencies, or comparison with the sibling tool beyond the obvious domain difference.

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