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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool formats dates but doesn't explain how it handles invalid inputs, what happens if parameters are missing, or what the output looks like (e.g., string format). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Format a date in various styles (short, medium, long, full).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes examples of styles, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter requirements, error handling, or return values, leaving gaps in how an agent should invoke it. While concise, it lacks necessary details for reliable tool selection and usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'date', 'style', and 'locale' are undocumented. The description mentions 'various styles (short, medium, long, full)' which partially explains the 'style' parameter but doesn't clarify 'date' format (e.g., ISO string) or 'locale' usage. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 the tool's purpose: 'Format a date in various styles (short, medium, long, full).' It specifies the verb ('Format') and resource ('a date'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-current-datetime' or 'get-day-of-week', which also handle dates but for different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions formatting styles but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over sibling tools (e.g., 'get-current-datetime' for unformatted dates or 'get-day-of-week' for specific date components). There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns the current date and time, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as format of the return value, whether it's real-time or cached, error handling for invalid timezones, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 very concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds optional parameter info in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., string, object), error conditions, or how the timezone parameter affects output. For a tool with potential complexity in timezone handling, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 has one parameter 'timezone' with 0% description coverage. The description adds value by specifying it's optional and related to timezone, but doesn't provide details like expected format (e.g., IANA timezone names) or examples. With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully, aligning with the baseline for minimal param info.

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: 'Returns the current date and time' with an optional timezone parameter. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and identifies the resource ('current date and time'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format-date' or 'get-timezone-info' beyond mentioning timezone as optional.

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 usage by mentioning 'Optionally specify a timezone,' which suggests when to use this parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'get-timezone-info' or 'format-date,' nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions for use.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a day of the week but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid date formats), default behavior (e.g., using system locale if unspecified), or output format (e.g., string like 'Monday' vs. numeric). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, error cases, and output specifics, which are essential for reliable agent invocation. Without annotations or output schema, more descriptive context is needed.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a given date or today,' which hints at the 'date' parameter but doesn't explain its format (e.g., ISO 8601) or optionality. The 'locale' parameter is entirely unmentioned, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.

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: 'Returns the day of the week for a given date or today.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('day of the week'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format-date' or 'get-current-datetime' beyond the specific output focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'format-date' (which might also output day of week) or 'get-current-datetime' (which provides broader datetime info). The description implies usage for date-to-weekday conversion but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information, which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't cover details like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned information. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 low complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' includes (e.g., offset, DST rules), how to interpret results, or handle errors, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specified timezone' which hints at the 'timezone' parameter, but doesn't explain what values are valid (e.g., IANA timezone names), whether it's optional, or what happens if omitted. This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare 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 verb ('returns') and resource ('information about the current or specified timezone'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-current-datetime' or 'get-day-of-week', which also provide time-related information, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific scope.

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 usage by mentioning 'current or specified timezone', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-current-datetime' or 'format-date'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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