epoch_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it does disclose the notable behavior that implausible readings are suppressed. However, it does not define 'implausible', the failure behavior, or output details such as the exact ISO format/UTC marker.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the core conversion purpose or a caveat.

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 and the description covers input domain and output format at a high level, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves gaps: exact accepted input syntax, unit indication, and the meaning of 'implausible readings suppressed'.

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 only provides a string parameter 'n' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that n represents epoch time in seconds/millis/micros/nanos, but it leaves unclear how the unit is specified or detected and what formats are accepted.

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 identifies the conversion from epoch seconds/millis/micros/nanos to ISO 8601 UTC, which clearly names the resource and result. It lacks an explicit action verb but the mapping is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling conversion utilities.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_units or human_duration, nor any exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the conversion phrase.

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