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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'number discarded' and otherwise fails to mention side effects, validation behavior, return values, privacy implications, or whether inputs are actually used.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient structure. It front-loads no useful context, and the phrase 'number discarded' is ambiguous and unexplained.

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 10 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, an agent cannot determine what action to take, what to return, or how this tool differs from the many similar siblings. The definition is incomplete in nearly every dimension.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning, but schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter has its own schema description; however, those descriptions are unrelated to the stated conversion purpose, which weakens the overall usefulness.

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 'Cords to cubic meters, number discarded' suggests a unit-conversion operation, but the 10-parameter schema contains unrelated string fields such as ref, url, city, feed, json, path, zone, query, and website. No coherent verb+resource relationship is established, and the text is more misleading than informative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling tool. An agent cannot tell whether to reach for calc-eval, normalize-url, validate-json, domain-shape, or this tool because no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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