Convert a Unix timestamp or date

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

Annotations already declare a pure, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing what the conversion returns (Unix seconds, milliseconds, ISO 8601, UTC and a chosen time zone), but it does not explain how ambiguous numeric input is interpreted or what structure the response takes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and input forms, with the output list following naturally. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what goes in and which representations come out. A brief note on timeZone behavior and second-vs-millisecond disambiguation would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that the value may be seconds, milliseconds, or a date string, which the schema's single seconds-based example does not convey. It still says nothing new about the timeZone parameter beyond the schema's IANA note.

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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (timestamp/date), and enumerates both the accepted input forms and the emitted representations. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like convert_units, which handle unrelated quantities.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when another sibling (e.g. convert_units) might be preferred, and no note on the ambiguous case of a bare integer that could be seconds or milliseconds.

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