Rave New Years

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the calculation basis (Sun entering Gate 41), the range limit, and cost. No contradictions.

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 concise with three sentences plus group, cost, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and annotations cover safety. The description explains the core functionality and constraints. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, which would improve completeness.

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% description coverage for the two required parameters. The description adds 'range of years' and an example request, partially compensating. However, it does not explain the valid format, allowed values, or behavior when parameters are null.

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 calculates 'Rave New Year dates' defined as 'exact moment Sun enters Gate 41' for a range of years. This is a specific verb and resource, distinct from sibling tools like hd_design_date.

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 specifies the tool is for a 'range of years' with a maximum of 50 years and provides an example request. However, it does not include explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from similar tools like hd_design_date.

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