convert_time

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the return shape (both sides with timezone, UTC offset, weekday, plus the time difference) and the DST edge-case behavior (a note when a time is skipped or repeated). The remaining gap is minor for a pure computation tool — no side effects, no auth or rate-limit concerns are mentioned, though none plausibly apply.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the return contract, then the DST caveat, then the input grammar — a sensible order with no filler. The long format enumeration is dense but every item removes a real ambiguity about what will parse.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return contract and the one non-obvious behavioral wrinkle (DST skip/repeat notes), and it fully covers the two required inputs. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 is 3, but the description earns an upgrade by enumerating concrete accepted forms for 'time' — ISO date, space-separated datetime, offset-bearing ISO, slash-separated, Japanese era names such as '令和6年12月10日' and 'R6.12.10', and time-only treated as today — which the schema's one-line example does not convey. It also reinforces that an offset written in the input overrides source_timezone. The 'format' parameter is left to its schema description by reference to get_datetime, so this is not a 5.

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 and resource ('Convert a time or date-time from one timezone to another') and immediately scopes what the result contains. Against siblings get_datetime, shift_datetime and get_datetime_info, the timezone-conversion framing is distinct enough that an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 purpose: convert when you have a time in one zone and need it in another. There is no explicit when-to-use versus shift_datetime or get_datetime, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The accepted-input-forms list indirectly tells the agent this tool is the right one for parsing loose date strings, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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