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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose the default behavior when 'to' is omitted (return all units), input validation behavior, or output format. For a mutation-free but multi-mode conversion tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place by naming the operation and the complete unit domain.

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 tool is simple (3 params, no nesting) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description is adequate for the conversion domain, though it omits the optional-'to' default behavior, which would be helpful in a multi-unit conversion 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents all three parameters including the optional 'to' with its fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (speed value), and enumerates the exact unit domain (knots, mph, km/h, m/s, ft/s), which matches the schema enum. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like convert_coordinates, which handles a different quantity.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the domain listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that the 'to' parameter is optional (behavior falls back to returning all units), and no routing to alternatives. The context is clear enough to act, but nothing beyond inference is provided.

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