normalize_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete behavioral contract of the transform (free-form input, ISO or GEDCOM output on either side of the arrow), but says nothing about unparseable input, ambiguous dates, error behavior, or whether output format is selectable.

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?

A single compact sentence with an arrow structure that front-loads the input contract and immediately follows with the output. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the parenthetical examples do real work.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and with one parameter the surface area is small. What it covers — input variety and the two output standards — is the essential information; only edge-case behavior for invalid or ambiguous dates is missing.

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% and the schema only declares 'text' as a string, so the description must carry the semantic load — and it does, by demonstrating four distinct accepted input shapes: approximate qualifiers, ranges, Spanish month names, and dotted numeric notation. It still omits the full set of supported languages and formats, so it compensates well but not completely.

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 verb 'normalize' is implicit but unmistakable from the arrow mapping human-written dates to ISO/GEDCOM, and the concrete examples ('около 1899' → 'ABT 1899') make the resource and direction of transformation unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as convert_calendar or feast_date, leaving that routing work to the agent.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming guidance. The examples imply that messy, non-standard, or non-English date strings are the target input, but the agent gets no explicit rule for choosing this tool over convert_calendar or cyrillic_numerals.

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