list_available_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the source parameter's behavior, returns a JSON with comparison results, and provides examples, implying a read-only listing operation. It lacks explicit notes on network behavior or edge cases, but this is sufficient for a simple read-only 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 sections for summary, args, returns, and examples. It is concise and front-loaded, though the first two sentences are somewhat redundant. Overall, it is appropriately sized and organized.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and examples. It does not mention error conditions or performance, but these are less critical for a listing tool. It is reasonably complete.

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 schema provides only a 'source' field with a default, but the description fully documents the three allowed values ('local', 'remote', 'both'), their meanings, and default behavior. This completely compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 it lists available date ranges from local/remote storage, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('date ranges'). It also explains the purpose of checking which dates have data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_date_range.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (checking data availability across local/remote) and illustrates usage with examples for the default and specific source. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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