pick_auspicious_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the engine's methodology (four-tier spirit arbitration), the ability to accept natural-language synonyms, and the weekend-only filter behavior. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a non-destructive date-picking tool these are minor omissions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides a well-organized list of event types. It is more verbose than the minimum because of bilingual examples, but every element — activity scope, engine, synonyms, weekend filter — contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria and behavior. It lists all supported activities, explains the engine's arbitration approach, and documents synonym handling. The 'days' parameter is covered by the schema, and the lack of a return-value description is acceptable given the tool's straightforward 'pick dates' purpose.

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 all three parameters. The description adds value by reinforcing the synonym flexibility for 'activity' and the weekend filter, but it does not add meaningful detail about the 'days' parameter beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Pick the best upcoming dates for a real-life event,' and enumerates the full set of supported activities (weddings, moving, openings, etc.). It also names the engine behind it, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_daily_horoscope or get_daily_almanac.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool via the exhaustive activity list and mentions synonym support, so an agent can easily match user requests to this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative, but the scope is concrete enough that selection is unambiguous in most cases.

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