timestamp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses auto-detection of epoch resolution, acceptance of strtotime-style natural language, and timezone handling. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the core conversion behavior is well articulated.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Convert any moment in time between formats') and each sentence adds distinct, valuable information without redundancy.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main scope, input flexibility, and timezone handling. It does not specify the exact output format, but given the tool's nature and the schema's clarity on input, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions (input, timezone). The tool description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining acceptable input forms (natural language, epoch), auto-detection of resolution, and the role of timezone for local components.

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 any moment in time between formats') and lists the formats (Unix epoch, ISO 8601, RFC 3339, human-readable). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like date_math or age_calc by emphasizing bidirectional format conversion.

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 conveys suitable use cases: converting any date/time string or epoch between formats, supporting natural language input, and optional timezone handling. It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention 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.