enrich_date_v1_enrich_date_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses core behaviors (relative date resolution, timezone awareness) and mentions the cost of 1 credit per request. However, it does not describe failure modes, edge-case behavior (e.g., ambiguous dates), or the exact output structure beyond the ISO 8601 format statement, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two sentences plus a cost line, delivering the purpose and key features upfront without fluff. It is appropriately concise and structured, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters but only 1 required, and the schema is detailed. The description covers the core transformation, relative dates, and timezone, plus cost. It lacks explicit notes on output format customization (though output_format is in schema) and does not state whether the output is a string or other type, but given the schema and the simplicity of the operation, it is reasonably complete. The deprecated target_timezone is noted in schema, not description, but that's acceptable.

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 high (83%), with most parameters having explanatory descriptions (e.g., locale, timezone, output_format). The main description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning timezone awareness, which is already covered. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description does not need to repeat, giving a baseline score of 3.

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 core function: transforming date strings into structured ISO 8601 formats. It highlights key features (relative date resolution, timezone awareness) and is unambiguous about the resource being dates. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling enrichment tools (e.g., enrich_amount, enrich_name), relying on the shared verb 'enrich' pattern for inference.

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 main description does not provide usage guidance, but the date_string parameter description explicitly states when to use ('USE THIS TOOL whenever you need to normalize a date for database entry') and includes a negative constraint (DO NOT use for plain time strings). It also advises specifying source_format for numeric years. However, it does not name alternative tools or compare with siblings, so guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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