get_time_range

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It states that the output is a JSON string, that the result is human-readable, and that CF time coordinates with various calendars are handled. It could mention error cases for non-CF or missing time dimensions, but the disclosed behavior is adequate for a read-only inspection tool.

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 sized and structured with purpose, behavior, Args, and Returns. Every sentence contributes information, and the key 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?

For a simple one-parameter inspection tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential invocation path and expected output. It is not fully complete because it omits edge-case behavior and any comparison to sibling tools, but those are minor gaps at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameter. It does: 'file_path: Path to the NetCDF file.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare string type, though it is minimal and lacks examples or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the time range of a NetCDF file') and adds scope ('human-readable format', CF-compliant time coordinates). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on spatial bounds, variable listing, or dimension values.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for obtaining a time range summary, but the description does not say when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_dimension_values or check_cf_compliance. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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