slc_era

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility. It discloses the need for an API key, but does not describe error handling, rate limits, or the exact output format beyond the example. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence with an illustrative example. It is front-loaded with the tool name and functionality, with no unnecessary 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?

This is a simple lookup tool, and the description explains the core conversion direction and provides an example. However, there is no output schema and no mention of edge cases, reverse conversion specifics, or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a fully complete understanding.

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 already documents both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description states 'key' is required ('必填') while the schema's required array includes only 'term', creating a direct contradiction that could mislead the agent.

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 tool converts Chinese historical dynasty/reign era names to AD year ranges and vice versa, using the example '明 -> 1368~1644'. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear usage context: input a dynasty/reign term or an AD year, and it returns the corresponding range or era. The example illustrates the expected input/output. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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