convert_cjk_date

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly what the tool does, what it returns (JDN, Gregorian date, Julian date pre-1582, ganzhi, concurrent era representations), and provides representative input formats. No unexpected side effects or hidden behaviors are left unaddressed.

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 with a summary, input examples, return values, and per-argument details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information without excessive verbosity.

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 description is complete for a converter tool with an output schema. It covers input syntax, optional ambiguity-resolution hints, and the nature of the returned conversions. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: each parameter is explained with concrete examples and purpose, and optional disambiguation hints (country, dynasty, emperor) are clearly described with valid values and sample inputs.

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 resource: 'Convert a CJK ... historical date to Julian Day Number and equivalent dates in all concurrent calendars.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like convert_jdn and convert_gregorian_date by specifying the input type and output scope.

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?

Usage context is implied clearly: use this when you have a CJK historical date string. Examples of valid inputs make the intended use concrete, but the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools like convert_jdn or search_era, nor does it state exclusion conditions.

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