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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds the supported unit dimensions and examples but does not disclose output format, handling of unsupported units, or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and examples appended efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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, read-only conversion tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough scope and examples to call it correctly. It stops short of explicitly stating the numeric return value, but that is a minor omission.

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 33%, with only 'from' described in the schema. The description's examples ('5 miles to km or 72 F to C') and unit-category list partially compensate by clarifying the kinds of values 'from' and 'to' accept, but they do not fully document all parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Convert between units') and enumerates the supported dimensions plus concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes itself from conversion siblings such as color_convert and timestamp_convert by focusing on physical and data units.

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 supported categories and examples give a clear usage context: use for converting numeric quantities between units. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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