date

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.