convert_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral quirk—relative date qualifiers are 'silently dropped'—and instructs downstream synthesis to copy localTime fields and offsets exactly, revealing part of the output contract. It does not discuss failure modes or error behavior, but the key behavioral risk for this conversion tool is clearly addressed.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then gives crisp usage constraints, a named alternative, and output-handling rules. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy; the length is justified by the routing and synthesis instructions.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, valid usage conditions, a sibling alternative, and the key output fields to preserve. It could additionally describe error behavior or the country-hint parameters, but the essential decision-making context is present.

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 71%, and the description adds meaningful value by constraining date to explicit ISO calendar dates and clarifying that current-moment conversions require no date qualifier. It also reinforces the meaning of from/time/to beyond what the raw property names convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Convert a source local time into one or more target locations.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly routing relative-date questions to answer_time_question, making the tool's scope concrete and non-overlapping.

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?

It provides explicit use conditions: use only with explicit ISO calendar dates or current-moment conversions, and explicitly says 'DO NOT use' for relative phrases like 'tomorrow' or 'next Friday.' It names answer_time_question as the alternative, fully satisfying when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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