relative_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core functionality and return format, but lacks details on error handling, timezone considerations, or input validation. It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more informative for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is fairly complete. It covers inputs, outputs, and basic behavior. However, it could improve by addressing edge cases or sibling tool differentiation, but it's sufficient for core usage.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of 'date_str' and 'reference', their formats (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS), and that 'reference' defaults to 'now'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Get relative time description between two dates.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('relative time description'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_time' or 'get_datetime', which might also handle date/time operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred over others, such as 'convert_time' for format changes or 'get_datetime' for absolute time retrieval. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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