answer_time_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool classifies intent and dispatches internally, warns that other tools silently drop natural-language qualifiers without an explicit ISO date, and notes suitability for vague/mixed intent. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or return format, but the core behavior is clearly surfaced.

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?

Three focused sentences, with the most important information front-loaded. The contrast with alternatives and the natural-language examples earn their place with no redundant content.

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 generic intent-router with no output schema, the description covers the core selection behavior, when to use it, why it is preferred, and how to distinguish it from sibling tools. It does not state the return shape, but the name and entry-point nature make the intended answer clear. Overall, it is adequately complete for safe and accurate selection.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context around what the 'query' parameter should contain (natural-language time questions), but does not elaborate on parameters like 'now', 'date', or 'locale' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose: it is the 'PREFERRED entry point for time/timezone/scheduling questions' and explains that it classifies intent and dispatches internally. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on already-structured time data.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it WHENEVER there is a natural-language day/date qualifier, and provides concrete examples like 'Tuesday' and 'next Friday'. It also warns against alternatives that 'silently drop' these qualifiers and recommends it for 'vague or mixed-intent prompts'.

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