resolve_date_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses server-side current time, returns a structured JSON with start/end dates, current_date, and a human-readable description, and explains the consistency benefit. However, it does not mention error handling, edge cases for unsupported expressions, or potential return failure modes, which is a minor gap for a date-parsing utility.

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 structured with clear headers (why, flow, args, returns, examples), bullet points, and code blocks. Every sentence contributes to comprehension: rationale, usage pattern, parameter details, return format, and a worked example. It is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity without 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 modest complexity (1 parameter, simple output), the description is complete: it explains the parameter, the return structure, the reason for using it, and the integration flow with other tools. The output schema is present and the description also provides an example return JSON, so there are no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema only defines 'expression' as a string with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by listing supported expression categories (single day, week, month, recent N days, dynamic) with examples in both Chinese and English, and even shows an example JSON output. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 opens with a clear Chinese verb+resource: '将自然语言日期表达式解析为标准日期范围' (parse natural language date expressions into a standard date range). It also explains why the tool exists (server-side time calculation ensuring consistent results) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its specific role in the workflow, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly provides '为什么需要这个工具' (why this tool is needed) and a '推荐使用流程' (recommended usage flow) with numbered steps, plus two concrete examples showing when to call it and how to chain it with other tools (analysize_sentiment, search_news). This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context makes it obvious.

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