date

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.