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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action, implying a read-only calculation, but it does not disclose return format, handling of edge cases, or limitations. This adds some context but leaves significant behavioral details undocumented.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the core purpose without any waste, making it highly concise.

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 description covers the basic function but lacks detail about the return value structure, which is not provided by an output schema. Since the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the missing information about what the conversion result looks like (e.g., all units or a single target) is a clear gap, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the impact.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (value and from_unit) with descriptions and an enum for from_unit. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('rechnet um' / converts) and clearly specifies the resource (power values) and the units (Watt, dBm, dBW). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other RF-related calculations like cable loss or EIRP.

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 description implies the tool is used for converting power units, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so usage is inferred rather than clearly guided.

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