convert_gregorian_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly says the conversion produces JDN and CJK era dates, but does not disclose behavior such as handling of invalid dates, supported date ranges, or whether the operation is purely stateless. The presence of an output schema covers return structure, but not edge-case behavior.

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 a single purposeful sentence followed by a one-line parameter note. It is front-loaded with the primary behavior and contains no filler or tangential information.

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?

With one simple parameter and an output schema present, the description gives the essential information needed to call the tool. Minor gaps remain around edge cases, date-range limits, and exactly which CJK calendars are included, but these do not block basic correct use.

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%, and the description compensates by specifying the exact format for the single parameter: 'Gregorian date in YYYY-MM-DD format'. This adds meaningful lexical and format guidance beyond the bare schema, though it omits any range, timezone, or validation constraints.

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'), the input resource ('Gregorian date'), and the full output scope ('Julian Day Number and all concurrent CJK era dates'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like convert_jdn and convert_cjk_date, which cover only a subset of the 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?

The intended use is implied by the conversion target: an agent should pick this tool when needing both JDN and CJK era dates from a Gregorian input. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like convert_cjk_date or convert_jdn, nor state when not to use it.

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