extract_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the normalization behavior (ISO YYYY-MM-DD), but says nothing about ambiguous or partial dates, timezone handling, whether the result is a list, or how multiple dates in one text are ordered — all material behaviors for a date extractor.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient. However, the bracketed '[conductor: verified stochastic command]' tag is unexplained boilerplate that occupies space without helping an agent invoke the tool correctly, weakening the otherwise tight structure.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema utility, the description covers the essential purpose and output normalization. It still omits what the return value looks like and how edge cases (no dates found, ambiguous dates) are handled, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single required 'text' parameter. The phrase 'a piece of text' does map that parameter to its meaning, providing some compensation, but it adds no constraints on length, language, or format, so the description only partially fills the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Extract every date referenced in a piece of text' — and adds the normalization target (ISO YYYY-MM-DD), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling extractors like extract_urls or extract_emails. The trailing '[conductor: verified stochastic command]' is unexplained noise that slightly muddies an otherwise crisp purpose statement.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling extraction tools. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'extract' applied to text, leaving the agent to guess at routing.

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