datetime_to_timestamp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion and does not mention timezone handling, default assumptions for naive datetimes, error behavior, or output precision (e.g., seconds vs milliseconds), which are important for a datetime conversion tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Convert') and avoids any wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and the description captures the core purpose. However, without annotations, it lacks any behavioral context such as timezone handling or error cases, leaving gaps that are important for a datetime conversion tool.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter datetime_str as 'The datetime string in ISO 8601 format' (100% schema coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 states 'Convert a human-readable datetime string to a Unix timestamp' – a specific verb (Convert) and resource (datetime string → Unix timestamp). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool timestamp_to_datetime, which performs the reverse conversion.

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 implies the use case: when you have a human-readable datetime string and need a Unix timestamp. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use timestamp_to_datetime for the reverse direction,' so it stops short of a 5.

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