human_duration

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names output categories but does not disclose return format, edge-case handling, whether the operation is a pure calculation, or any other behavioral details. This is too sparse for an unannotated 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 extremely compact and has no filler words. It front-loads the main output concept and the additional rate outputs, but the terseness contributes to the lack of completeness elsewhere.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only explanation of behavior. It does not specify the exact returned representation, whether rates are strings or numbers, or how the input seconds are used. For a one-parameter tool it is partially understandable but far from complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It never mentions the seconds parameter, its valid range, units interpretation, or how rates are derived. The schema title 'Seconds' and the tool name do most of the work, but the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 communicates that the tool produces a human-readable duration and per-day/per-30d rates, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not clearly state the operation performed on the input. It is not a tautology, but it is vague enough that it could be confused with conversion or formatting tools like convert_units.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as convert_units or epoch_time. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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