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 usefully discloses the accepted range (1–3999), strict validation that rejects malformed numerals like IIIM or VX, and the x402 payment price. However, it does not state error behavior on invalid input, return format, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core conversion behavior in one clear sentence, followed by a validation note and a compact pricing disclosure. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 bidirectional converter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential range, validation strictness, and cost. A minor gap is the absence of return-value format guidance, though the operation is simple enough that this is unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (op with enum direction, and value). The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 (Convert) and resource (numbers / Roman numerals), including both directions and the supported range (1–3999). It also distinguishes itself from sibling converters by specializing in Roman numerals and noting strict validation.

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 strongly implied by the tool name and description (use for Roman numeral conversions), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. No sibling overlaps exist, so the lack of exclusions is less harmful, but the description still leaves routing to inference.

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