parse_date

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

With no annotations, the description must handle behavioral disclosure entirely. It only states the high-level transformation, omitting critical details such as timezone handling (does it assume UTC or local?), error behavior for invalid strings, or the exact output structure (e.g., separate fields vs. a combined object). This leaves significant ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 sentence stating the purpose directly with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and outputs, making it easy to scan. Efficiency is maximal without losing the essential meaning.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the input adequately, but it fails to specify the output structure (no output schema exists) and does not address edge cases like invalid input or timezone interpretation. An agent would likely need to inspect behavior or make assumptions, leaving a notable gap for effective 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 coverage is 100% – the 'date' parameter includes example formats in its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 action ('Parse'), the resource ('a human/ISO date string'), and the two output forms ('ISO 8601 and Unix timestamp'). This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like convert_timestamp, which focuses on converting between timestamp formats rather than parsing human-readable dates.

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 intended use is implied: to convert date strings into two standard formats. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., convert_timestamp, parse_cron), and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer appropriateness based on the name and description alone.

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