get_trade_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (markdown table with 1/0 indicators) and default date values, which adds useful context beyond just the function name. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions that would be important for an agent to know when invoking this 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses efficient language. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by combining some information, but overall it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown in the prompt), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values, and it appropriately describes the output format. With 2 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good coverage of parameter semantics and basic behavioral context. For a data-fetching tool with date parameters, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about limitations or constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema only has titles 'Start Date' and 'End Date'), the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It specifies the date format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), indicates both parameters are optional, documents the default values (2015-01-01 for start_date, current date for end_date), and explains the null handling. This adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema 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 clearly states the tool 'fetches trading dates information within a specified range', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (like get_latest_trading_date or get_historical_k_data), which also deal with date-related financial data. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools dealing with financial data (e.g., get_latest_trading_date, get_historical_k_data, get_stock_basic_info), there's no indication of when this specific trading dates tool is appropriate versus other date-related or market data tools. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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