jp_from_wareki

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavior: warning when the month/day falls outside the era. However, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or null-handling, so transparency is only partial.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. Every word contributes to the core function and a key edge-case behavior, making this appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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, the description covers the main purpose and the warning behavior, but with no output schema it should also describe the return value format. It does not, leaving some uncertainty for the agent about what to expect from the tool.

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 only 25%, meaning only the 'era' parameter has an explanation. The description barely compensates: it mentions 'month/day' but does not clarify the role of era_year or the expected ranges for month/day. It adds minimal meaning beyond property names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource: a Japanese era date to the Gregorian calendar. It distinguishes itself from sibling jp_to_wareki by stating the conversion direction, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 when a Japanese era date needs conversion to Gregorian, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not point to jp_to_wareki for the reverse conversion, leaving the usage context only implicit.

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