Remote MCP Server on Cloudflare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality but lacks important behavioral context: no information about timezone handling, date format consistency, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description mentions the tool can handle relative units but doesn't specify the complete list or how ambiguous cases are resolved.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that cover the main functionality. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows with the conditional behavior. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit examples.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a date calculation tool. It doesn't specify the return format (string format, timezone), doesn't mention error handling, and doesn't provide the complete list of supported relative units. For a tool that performs date calculations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that the parameter accepts both absolute dates and relative units, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already states.

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's purpose: '获取当前日期' (get current date) with specific functionality for handling relative date units. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_current_weather' by focusing on date retrieval rather than weather data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool in the description text itself.

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 implies when to use this tool through its functional explanation: when users need current date or date calculations with relative units. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance about when to choose this tool versus alternatives (like the sibling weather tool) or any prerequisites for usage.

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