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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, nondestructive, and closedWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the response also includes a list of garments typically made at that weight class. It does not mention rounding or precision of the conversion, so it 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the conversion action and followed by the secondary payload. No filler, no restatement of the title or parameter names.

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 pure read-only computation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and explicitly mentioning the garment list compensates for the missing output schema. It only falls short of complete by omitting conversion precision and the both/neither-parameter behavior.

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 100%, so both params are already documented with units and bounds, giving a baseline of 3. The description implies a one-of-two-unit conversion but never states the relationship between the two parameters, so it adds no meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert'), an unambiguous resource ('fabric weight between GSM and ounces per square yard'), and even discloses a secondary function (listing typical garments). None of the sibling tools overlap with unit conversion, so it is trivially distinguishable. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 on when to call this versus anything else, and no note on direction of conversion (supply oz or gsm?) or what happens if both/neither are provided. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement. With no exclusions or prerequisites stated, this is the weakest dimension.

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