convert_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is included in the conversion, it doesn't describe error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid dates. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and additional value. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by the comprehensive inclusions.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, cultural conversion logic) and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and what information it includes, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, error handling, or output format details that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about what cultural information is included in the conversion output, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Convert between Gregorian and Chinese Lunar calendar') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the unique cultural elements included (Ganzhi, zodiac animal, solar terms, festivals). It goes beyond a simple conversion tool by detailing the comprehensive cultural information provided.

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 implies usage through the mention of conversion directions and included information, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_festivals' or 'get_almanac'. No explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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