validate_weekday_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains that the weekday name is authoritative, describes the correction logic, and details the return fields including is_correct, corrected_date, and context. This is comprehensive.

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 a summary line followed by Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'corrected_date' in the summary and Returns).

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains input semantics, output fields, and behavioral rules, leaving no gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter in the Args section: weekday as name or abbreviation, claimed_date as ISO format, week_start as day week starts, timezone as IANA timezone. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 validates a weekday+date claim against the current week and corrects it, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on validation and correction rather than just retrieval.

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 explains the authoritative nature of the weekday name and the correction logic, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools.

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