get_release_dates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it's paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description is completely silent on all behavioral aspects.

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?

While technically concise (just three words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't communicate essential information, so its brevity is a deficiency rather than a virtue. It's not front-loaded with useful information - it provides no useful information at all.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and complex sibling relationships, the description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or how it behaves. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'release_id' refers to, what 'realtime_start/end' mean, what 'include_release_dates_with_no_data' controls, or how the limit/offset/sort_order parameters affect results. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'fred/release/dates' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., 'retrieve', 'list', 'fetch') or clarify what 'release dates' refers to in this context. No meaningful purpose is communicated beyond the name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (like get_release, get_releases_dates, get_release_observations_v2, etc.). There's no indication of what problem this tool solves or what context it's appropriate for.

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