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 only states the basic function without detailing behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid timezone inputs), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its core purpose.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Convert time between timezones.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (time conversion with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for effective use, such as parameter formats, return values, or error conditions, leaving users with insufficient information.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter details are provided in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain what 'sourceTimezone', 'targetTimezone', or 'time' represent (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). This fails to compensate for the low schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Convert time between timezones.' It specifies the verb 'convert' and the resource 'time,' making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'current_time' or 'relative_time,' which also handle time-related operations, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'convert_time' over sibling tools such as 'relative_time' for time calculations or 'current_time' for current time retrieval, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address potential behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'format' and 'timezone' do, their expected values, or how they affect the output. This leaves both parameters completely unexplained.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current date and time'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_timestamp' or 'get_week_year' which may also retrieve time-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_timestamp' or 'convert_time'. It lacks context about specific use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's behavior (defaulting to current month if no date is given), which is useful, but does not cover aspects like error handling, date format requirements, or performance traits. This leaves gaps in transparency for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary detail in the second, with no wasted words. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying behavior and default usage, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for basic usage. However, it lacks details on the return value (e.g., integer output) and potential edge cases (e.g., invalid dates), which would enhance completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'date', but the description compensates by explaining its optional nature and effect (if provided, uses that month; if not, uses current month). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify the expected date format or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Get the number of days in a month') and the resource involved ('a month'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'convert_time' or 'current_time' which handle different time-related operations. It also specifies the behavior when no date is provided, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get days in a month, with or without a date input), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like 'get_week_year' for different time calculations. This gives adequate guidance but lacks exclusion details.

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

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. However, it reveals nothing about behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, what format the output might be in, or any error conditions. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is one line), it fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. The brevity here is a detriment due to lack of content, not an asset of clear communication.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does in detail, how to use the parameter, what the output might be, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with such minimal structured data, the description should provide comprehensive context, which it fails to do.

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 one parameter ('time') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not compensate by explaining what the 'time' parameter represents (e.g., a date-time string, a time zone, a specific format) or how it's used. Without this, the agent cannot understand what input to provide, leading to potential misuse.

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 'Get the timestamp for the time' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'get_timestamp' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being acted upon (e.g., converting a time string to Unix timestamp, extracting timestamp from a date object) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'convert_time' or 'current_time'. The verb 'get' is generic and the phrase 'for the time' is circular.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'convert_time' or 'current_time', nor does it specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. Without any usage instructions, an AI agent would have to guess based on the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but fails to describe key traits such as whether it's read-only, what format the output returns, error handling, or any constraints. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for clarity in tool selection.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for a tool that performs date calculations. It should explain the return format, input date format expectations, and any behavioral nuances to be considered complete for effective use by an AI agent.

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 does not mention the 'date' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description adds no value beyond what the schema minimally provides, resulting in an average score.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resources 'week and isoWeek of the year', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_timestamp' or 'current_time' that might also provide time-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_timestamp' or 'current_time'. It lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the relative time from now', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like input format (e.g., ISO 8601), error handling, or output structure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Get the relative time from now.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'relative time' means in practice, how the 'time' parameter should be formatted, or what the output looks like (e.g., a string like '2 hours ago'). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 1 parameter ('time') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about its meaning or format. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying it relates to 'time', failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the parameter's semantics largely undefined.

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 'Get the relative time from now' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relative time'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'relative time' means compared to siblings like 'convert_time' or 'get_timestamp'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from these alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'convert_time' or 'get_timestamp'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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