epoch_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states it shows specific timezones (UTC, US Eastern, US Pacific, Europe/London, Asia/Singapore), which is useful. However, it does not disclose output format, error handling, or any side effects, and the leading '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' is a billing notice rather than behavioral transparency.

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 core description is a single, focused sentence that is easy to parse. However, the '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' prefix is extraneous and not directly relevant to the tool's purpose, slightly reducing structural quality.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it does and mentions output timezones, but does not describe the exact return format or behavior with empty input (though the schema hints at empty for current time). Given the lack of an output schema, more detail on return structure would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the value parameter can be epoch seconds, milliseconds, or ISO date, and mentions the default timezones shown, but the schema already documents both parameters well. No significant semantic lift.

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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') and identifies the resource (epoch milliseconds/seconds and human-readable dates) and scope (multiple timezones). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'timestamp' by emphasizing multi-timezone conversion and specific timezone outputs.

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?

Provides clear context about when to use this tool: for converting epoch time to/from human-readable dates and viewing multiple timezones. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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