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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing data-coverage limits: which charts exist, their source and firing-rate assumptions, and that Orton publishes nothing above cone 14, so high cones return no figure. That tells the agent when the tool will come up empty, which is real behavioral value, though nothing is said about result formatting.

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 first and last sentences are well placed and front-load the essential operation, but the middle is a dense provenance block about chart editions and firing rates that is hard to parse and pushes the invocation hint to the end. The detail is arguably useful given no output schema, yet it is not structured or scannable.

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 four-parameter conversion tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers chart semantics and cone ranges reasonably well and hints at nearest-cone matching. It is still incomplete on temperature-parameter behavior, cone string format, and what the returned conversion actually contains.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does explain the `chart` enum values (Orton vs SK, JIS R 8101) and the cone ranges per chart, and it hints that a cone or a temperature is supplied. However, `celsius` and `fahrenheit` are never mentioned, nor is their mutual exclusivity or the cone string format, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource pair: converts between pyrometric cones and temperature, and between °C and °F. That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the material/recipe siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, but the domain is obvious enough that no sibling could be confused with it.

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 only operational guidance is the closing 'Give a cone, or a temperature to find the nearest cones,' which hints at input modes but never states when to choose this tool, when not to, or which chart value to pick. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer everything about selection.

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