thai_convert_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the return JSON structure for both modes, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not explicitly state safety or idempotency, but annotations cover that.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second lists return fields. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value 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?

The description explains the return structure and the two modes, but does not cover edge cases or error handling. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for typical usage.

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 has detailed parameter descriptions, so the description adds limited new meaning beyond the schema. The description summarizes the two operation modes, which is slightly helpful, but the schema already explains each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool formats an ISO date as a Thai date string or converts years CE/BE, distinguishing two modes. It uses specific verbs and resources, and naturally differentiates from siblings which are unrelated Thai utilities.

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 identifies two use cases (formatting or year conversion) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings are unrelated, so no direct comparison is needed, but the description could state that for date-related conversions this is the appropriate tool.

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