TIME CALCULATOR

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the types of operations, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether operations are read-only or mutating, error handling for invalid inputs, performance characteristics, or what the return values look like. For a complex tool with 12 parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently cover purpose and usage. The first sentence establishes the scope of operations, and the second provides specific use cases. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping related operations.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how errors are handled, performance considerations, or provide guidance on parameter combinations for different operations. The schema covers parameter definitions well, but the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, which parameters are required for which operations, or provide additional context about parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 performs 'time arithmetic operations' and lists specific functions like duration calculations, date math, and sorting. It distinguishes from the sibling 'GET TIME' by emphasizing calculations rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb+resource combination is specific but could be more precise about the computational nature.

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 provides clear usage contexts with 'Use for adding/subtracting time periods, calculating differences between dates, analyzing time-based datasets, or sorting arrays of timestamps.' This gives explicit when-to-use guidance for different scenarios. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly compare with the sibling 'GET TIME' tool.

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