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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only hints that a number is discarded, but does not explain side effects, authentication needs, retention, or why the schema contains many unrelated discarded parameters. This is far too sparse for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 and front-loads the conversion, but the second phrase 'number discarded' is cryptic and does not earn its place given the schema. It is concise but not meaningfully structured for an agent trying to understand the tool.

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 nine optional string parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does almost nothing to explain how those parameters relate to the conversion, what gets returned, or why the tool exists. It is inadequate for the interface's complexity.

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 schema already documents each parameter's purpose, including the repeated 'discarded after' wording. The description adds no meaningful parameter information and mentions a 'number' that does not appear among the nine schema properties. With high schema coverage, 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 description names a specific conversion (hundredweight to kilograms), which gives some purpose. However, 'number discarded' is confusing because no numeric parameter exists in the schema, and the tool is not distinguished from siblings like calc-eval. The schema's nine string parameters further make the stated purpose feel disconnected from the actual interface.

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 use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives such as calc-eval. The description provides neither context nor exclusions, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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