resolve_date_range

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses server-side current time for consistency, and details the return structure with start/end dates, current_date, and description, plus examples. It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a non-destructive parsing tool this is sufficient.

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 lengthy but well-structured with headers, bullet points, and examples. Every section adds value, but some repetition (e.g., multiple examples of the same workflow) could be trimmed. Still, it is organized enough for quick scanning.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: valid input options, return format, and end-to-end usage examples. The presence of an output schema (noted in context) further reduces the need to explain return values, making this description 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It compensates by listing supported expression formats (e.g., '今天', '本周', '最近7天') and providing concrete examples that map to accepted values. This gives the agent clear guidance on how to fill the 'expression' parameter.

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 identifies the tool's function: parsing natural language date expressions into a standard date range. It explicitly states the verb and resource ('将自然语言日期表达式解析为标准日期范围') and positions it as a recommended precursor to other tools, distinguishing it from siblings like get_news_by_date.

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?

Provides explicit workflow instructions showing when to call resolve_date_range before analyze_sentiment or search_news, and explains why it should be used (to ensure consistent dates across AI models). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or list alternative date-handling approaches.

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