human_duration

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says the output is a humanised duration and rates, but it does not explain how the input seconds are processed, what the rate values represent, output formatting, or any edge cases. This is insufficient.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. Important information is missing, so it is not efficient in conveying meaning. The sentence provides minimal utility and does not earn its place due to ambiguity.

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 one-parameter tool, but the core functionality is unclear due to the vague mention of 'per-day and per-30d rates'. While an output schema exists, the description still needs to clarify the tool's purpose and the meaning of its outputs. It currently leaves significant gaps.

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 only parameter, 'seconds', is not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain what 'seconds' means and how it relates to the output. It adds no value beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 tool's output (humanised duration and rates) but lacks a clear verb identifying the operation. It is ambiguous what 'per-day and per-30d rates' means, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools beyond the obvious time-related context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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