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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds directional semantics (real vs nominal) but does not disclose edge cases like negative inflation rates, rounding, or handling of years=0. With annotations present, 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and economically states both modes. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need to be described. The description covers both directions of the calculation and the core parameter roles. It is complete for typical financial inflation adjustments, though it could mention handling of negative rates or zero periods for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the economic interpretation of 'amount' (nominal vs real) and how toNominal changes the operation. This clarifies the primary parameter's purpose more than the schema's generic 'Amount to adjust.'

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 uses a specific verb 'Convert' and clearly explains both directions (nominal to real, or real to nominal with toNominal). It names the resource ('amount', 'purchasing power') and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on inflation adjustment rather than general time value of money.

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?

It implies when to use: whenever you need to adjust for inflation, and it explains the two possible modes (deflating vs inflating) based on the toNominal parameter. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is clear and unambiguous for the intended use case.

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