convert_timestamp

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

The description discloses the return formats (ISO 8601, RFC 2822, human-readable, Unix) and timezone support, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation and adequately describes the operation.

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 a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and lists output formats efficiently, earning its place.

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 output schema, the description explains what the tool returns, including multiple formats and timezone handling. It covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly, though it omits edge-case behavior like invalid input handling.

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%: both parameters (timestamp, timezone) have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating 'timezone support', so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Convert' and the resource 'Unix timestamps and human-readable dates', and specifies the output formats. No sibling tool performs timestamp conversion, so it is inherently distinct.

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 its use case (converting between time representations) and no alternative tool exists among siblings. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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