get_month_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., for invalid year/month inputs), performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding how it behaves in edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists key details without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, specifics) earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (2 simple parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose and output details. However, it lacks information on return format (e.g., structured data vs. text) and error cases, which could be helpful for an agent to handle robustly. It's minimally complete but has room for improvement.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (year and month with range constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage tips. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific month'), listing concrete details like number of days, first/last day weekday, leap year status, and quarter. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_current_time' or 'date_diff' by focusing on comprehensive month metadata rather than calculations or conversions.

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 when month-level details are needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_almanac' (which might provide broader date information) or 'calculate_time' (which might handle date arithmetic). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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