ebay_convert_date_to_timestamp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the supported input types (ISO 8601, Unix timestamps, relative time) and that the output is in milliseconds. This is sufficient for a simple conversion tool, though it could mention that relative time is parsed relative to the current time.

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 concise, comprising two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds supported formats and a use case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 simple one-parameter conversion tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input formats and output unit. It also provides a practical use case. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., 'returns a number'), but overall it is complete enough.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing the context of token expiry times, which helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose. The schema already describes the formats, so the description slightly exceeds baseline.

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 converts a date string or number to a Unix timestamp in milliseconds. It specifies supported formats (ISO 8601, Unix timestamps, relative time) and a use case (setting token expiry times). This distinguishes it from the many other eBay tools, as it is a utility conversion function.

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 a concrete use case: 'Useful when setting token expiry times from user input.' This gives context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it is not fully explicit.

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