Chronoguard Resolve Time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral limitation ('v0.1 business-day calendars assume a Saturday/Sunday weekend') and asserts determinism, but says nothing about output shape, timezone handling, or failure behavior. One good disclosure against several missing traits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loading the what before the when and the caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

A 7-parameter, complex temporal tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations requires strong parameter guidance, which is absent. The output schema does relieve the description of explaining return values, and the use-case list helps route intent, but an agent still cannot tell from this text how timezone, reference_timestamp, subdivision, or value/unit interact per operation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The listed use cases loosely hint at the operation values, but unit, value, timezone, reference_timestamp, subdivision, and country_code are never explained. The one sentence about S/S weekends only faintly implies the country_code/calendar dimension.

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?

States a specific domain and capability: 'temporal resolution and business-date arithmetic' with concrete coverage of current time, offsets, spans, business days, SLAs, and cutoffs. The verb is abstract ('resolve') but the resource and scope are clear. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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 second sentence enumerates the situations the tool is for (current time, elapsed/calendar offsets, rolling spans, business-day offsets, SLAs, financial cutoffs), which maps well onto the operation enum. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or conditions under which it is wrong to use, and there are no alternatives to route to.

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