get_latest_trading_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a single date, handles non-trading days by returning the previous trading date, and specifies the output format. However, it lacks details on timezone handling, data freshness, or error conditions, which are relevant for a date-related 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 perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, followed by a clear 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds essential value: the first explains the logic, the second specifies the format. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple logic), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and output format. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of timezone or data source, but overall it provides sufficient context 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output without redundant parameter info, earning a baseline 4 for effectively handling the zero-parameter case.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('获取' meaning 'get/retrieve') and resource ('最近的交易日期' meaning 'latest trading date'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_trade_dates' which likely returns multiple dates. It precisely defines what 'latest' means in terms of current vs. previous trading days.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get the most recent trading date, handling non-trading days), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_trade_dates' for broader date queries. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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