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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is pure computation and free, which reinforces the absence of side effects and cost, but it does not disclose date parsing behavior, timezone handling, or what happens if the inputs are reversed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and output units, with zero wasted language. The cost/computation note is brief and relevant.

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 two-parameter computation tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is close to adequate and usefully names the output units. However, the missing input date format and edge-case behavior are notable gaps for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two required parameters. It only indicates that the inputs are 'dates' and does not specify accepted formats (e.g., ISO 8601, date-only, timestamps) or ordering semantics, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 states a specific operation and resource: computing the difference between two dates, with output units (days, hours, minutes). This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from conversion-oriented siblings like bursia_timestamp_convert or bursia_timezone_convert, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Pure computation, free' hints that the tool has no side effects or cost, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools such as bursia_timestamp_convert or bursia_timezone_convert. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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