Convert Timestamp

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description correctly avoids repeating that. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: auto-detection of seconds vs milliseconds, acceptance of ISO 8601 strings and 'now', and IANA timezone support. These are not covered by annotations and help the agent predict behavior.

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 four short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and key capability are front-loaded, followed by a usage tip and an optional web link. Every sentence contributes value; the web link is extraneous but does not detract from clarity or efficiency.

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 conversion utility with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function, input flexibility, and timezone handling. It does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., the exact human-readable representation), but for a well-known operation like timestamp conversion this is inferable. Combined with the complete input schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters: 'value' is described as 'Epoch seconds/ms, an ISO 8601 string, or "now"' and timeZone as 'IANA timezone, e.g. "America/New_York"'. The description adds only the auto-detection nuance, which is a behavior rather than parameter semantics. Since the schema already fully documents the inputs, the description contributes minimal extra meaning, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific action (convert), the resource (Unix epoch and human-readable time), and a key capability (auto-detects seconds vs milliseconds). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling utilities like generate_uuid or base64_encode, which serve entirely different purposes. The IANA timezone mention further specifies scope.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this rather than doing the arithmetic in your head,' providing a clear reason to choose this tool over manual calculation. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but among the siblings none are alternatives for conversion, so the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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