convert_jdn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output types, but does not mention side effects, error handling, prerequisites, or authentication needs. For a conversion tool, this is minimal 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 description is concise and front-loaded, opening with the core action and resource, then detailing return types and the argument. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple conversion tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and return types. It is adequate but lacks discussion of edge cases, error behavior, or prerequisites, especially without annotations to fill in safety and permission details.

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?

The description defines the single parameter 'jdn' as a Julian Day Number, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it lacks additional context like valid range or format, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the action 'Convert' and the resource 'Julian Day Number', and explicitly enumerates the output types (Gregorian, Julian, ganzhi, CJK era dates). This distinguishes it from siblings like convert_gregorian_date and convert_cjk_date, which are specific to one representation.

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 description implies usage by stating it converts to 'all calendar representations', making it the natural choice for any JDN conversion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like convert_gregorian_date, so the routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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