Time in places, now or converted

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: it flags times that DST skips or repeatsstitution and reports each place's offset and next clock change. This is especially useful for handling ambiguous local times.

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 three compact sentences that front-load the core behavior, then add examples, DST caveats, and output details without repetition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no unnecessary duplication of schema 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and robust annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: input formats, place identifier styles, DST ambiguity handling, and key returned fields. The only minor gap is explicit tool-selection guidance relative to its siblings, which is largely a usage-guideline concern.

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 schema documents `from` and `time` defaults but leaves `places` semantically bare. The description compensates by enumerating accepted place forms (city, country, zone, PST, UTC+4) and giving concrete time-string examples such as '2026-03-08 02:30' and '9am', turning bare parameter names into usable input guidance.

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 function: show the current time in up to 20 places or convert a local time across those places and display offsets and next clock changes. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like date_info, holidays, and meeting_slots, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied clearly: time lookup or time-zone conversion across multiple places. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the sibling date/holiday/scheduling tools or when not to use it.

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