time_converter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Convert time' and lists inputs, but does not disclose side effects (none expected), whether the operation is read-only, edge-case behavior (e.g., negative values), or the output format. For a non-mutating tool this is less critical than for a mutation tool, but the description still fails to state that it is a pure calculation or what the return looks like.

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 highly concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and unit list. Every word adds information, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly tying inputs to parameters, but overall it is efficient.

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 3-parameter converter with no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It does not explicitly state that from/to accept the listed abbreviations, nor describe the output value. An agent could likely call it correctly by inference, but the description is not fully self-sufficient given the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It merely lists input names ('value, from, to') without explaining that value is the numeric amount and from/to accept the unit abbreviations listed earlier. It does not explicitly map the unit strings to the from/to parameters, leaving the agent to infer that from and to should use those abbreviations. This is minimal added value over the raw schema.

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 verb ('Convert') and resource ('time') and enumerates the exact units supported (ms/sec/min/hr/day/week/month/yr). This clearly differentiates it from sibling converters like length_converter or weight_converter without needing to open schemas.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it (time conversion), and the unit list implies coverage of time-only conversions. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use this for time, not for length/weight,' so exclusion guidance is only implied, not stated.

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