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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the conversion direction and adds calendar terminology, but does not disclose the output date format, whether time-of-day is ignored, what happens for invalid dates, or any calendrical edge cases. This is a significant gap for a tool with 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core conversion relationship is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact for a simple one-parameter 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?

The tool itself is low-complexity, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the returned Hebrew date looks like or how edge cases are handled. An agent could successfully invoke it but would be uncertain about interpreting the result without additional assumptions.

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 date parameter and its yyyy-MM-dd format. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('converts') and clearly names the input ('Gregorian (civil) date') and output ('Hebrew date (Jewish calendar)'). This directionality distinguishes it directly from the sibling convert-hebrew-to-gregorian without needing to open either 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 clearly communicates the conversion direction, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate relative to its reverse sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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