ChronoGate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — weekends and public holidays are skipped — but does not say that holidays depend on the country parameter, nor what happens if the result itself falls on a holiday. That omission matters for an openWorldHint tool whose output varies by region.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key behavior clause in the same breath. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate the return value — presumably a date, but the format and whether it matches the YYYY-MM-DD input are unstated. For a simple three-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but the return shape and country-holiday dependency leave real gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by clarifying the unit of 'days' as business days rather than calendar days — an ambiguity the schema's bare 'Non-negative integer' leaves open. The country parameter's effect on which holidays are skipped is still not explained in prose.

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?

States a specific verb ('add') and resource ('business days to a start date') plus the defining behavior ('skipping weekends and public holidays'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling is_business_day. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer is_business_day for single-date checks or resolve_expression for holiday-aware expression parsing, so tool selection relies entirely on name matching.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing DST handling, but omits behavior for ambiguous/nonexistent local times during DST transitions and for invalid zone identifiers, which are the main failure modes for this operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, input shape, defaults, and DST awareness with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple three-parameter, read-only conversion tool with full schema coverage, the description covers input shape, defaults, and DST behavior adequately. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the returned value's form would close the only remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the UTC default for `to` and the naive-input condition for `from`. The description restates those conditions rather than adding new semantics (no zone-name format, offset rules, or edge-case handling), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (convert) plus a precise resource (ISO-8601 instant / naive local between IANA zones). The resource is unmistakably distinct from siblings like now, add_business_days, is_business_day, and resolve_expression, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 noting naive local input requires from=, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as now or resolve_expression, nor any exclusions. Usage has to be inferred from the input shape.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the definition used (weekend plus Nager.Date public holidays), which tells the agent the result depends on an external holiday dataset and may vary by country. It stops short of stating the boolean return or invalid-date behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the predicate, the input format, and the holiday definition all earn their place.

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 two-parameter predicate with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: what counts as a business day. Only the boolean return value and behavior on malformed dates are left implicit.

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%, and the schema already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country defaulting to US. The description restates those formats rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a precise predicate (whether a date is a business day), the accepted date format, and the country scoping, so the agent knows exactly what question the tool answers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling add_business_days, which performs a related but different calculation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool answers a boolean calendar question, so it is inferable when to call it. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling add_business_days for the opposite direction of the same domain.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload — instant, wall-clock time, UTC offset, and DST flag — which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single 21-word sentence that front-loads the core result and appends the extra return fields. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and return contents adequately. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens with an invalid IANA name, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the tz parameter with its default of UTC. The description adds only a format example (America/Chicago); it does not describe invalid-tz behavior or fallback handling, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the current instant and wall-clock time for an IANA timezone, plus offset and DST flag. It clearly reads as the 'now' primitive next to siblings like convert and add_business_days, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs the current time rather than a computation (convert, add_business_days, is_business_day). There is no explicit when/when-not or reference to an alternative tool.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that resolution is timezone-scoped, but says nothing about how ambiguous or unparseable expressions are handled, nor what form the resolved value takes (timestamp, ISO string, object). With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 fits.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the examples front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose output format matters, but there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what a 'resolved' expression looks like and in what format, which it does not. Three params with one entirely unaddressed (country) and no error/ambiguity behavior leaves real gaps, though the core call is inferable.

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 coverage is 67%, so tz and country are documented in the schema; the description only reinforces tz ('in a timezone'). The country parameter — which selects business-day holiday calendars — is not mentioned at all in the description, and expr has no schema description either, so the description adds little beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (relative time expression) and grounds it with three concrete example inputs, plus the timezone scoping. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like add_business_days or convert, which also manipulate dates, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the example expressions; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over add_business_days (which also handles 'business days') or convert. The 'in 2 business days' example actually overlaps a sibling's apparent domain without saying which to prefer.

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