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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Number discarded' hints at a side effect and parameter descriptions mention values being discarded, but the main description never explains side effects, return values, network access, or error behavior.

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 extremely short, but brevity is not useful structure; the phrase is nearly a fragment and omits the essential information it should be front-loading.

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 tool with nine heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot tell what input to supply, what happens, or what result to expect.

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%, and each parameter already has its own description. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Cords to cubic meters, number discarded' reads as a unit conversion, but the schema accepts unrelated string fields such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query. No verb identifies what the tool does with these inputs, so an agent cannot determine its actual purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call cord-m3 versus any of the 29 sibling tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are provided.

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