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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool also returns grade class and international interpretations, giving concrete behavioral expectations beyond the simple conversion. It does not mention error handling, but for a pure conversion tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by additional return information. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has a simple footprint (2 params, no output schema), and the description compensates by stating what is returned (grade class, international interpretations) and the intended use (scholarship applications). This is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only reinforces the tool's overall scope (13 systems, 54 countries). No further compensation needed.

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 resource ('grade from any of 13 African grading systems to the international 4.0 GPA scale'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling scholarship, visa, and cost tools. It also notes coverage of all 54 African countries, adding scope.

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 explicitly ties usage to scholarship applications worldwide, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no confusion exists.

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