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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it fails. The phrase 'number discarded' gestures at discard semantics that the schema's per-param 'discarded after the check' notes already imply, but nothing is said about side effects, network access, or what the tool actually returns for any of the nine inputs.

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 brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — the single fragment is front-loaded with the wrong information, so no sentence earns its place.

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 nine-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what is checked, what is returned, and why inputs are discarded. It supplies none of this and instead describes an unrelated conversion.

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 coverage is 100%, which normally sets a baseline of 3, but the description actively confuses the parameters by attributing a single numeric conversion to nine string inputs. It adds no usable meaning and instead conflicts with the schema's own documentation.

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 claims a numeric unit conversion ('Volt-amperes to watts'), but the schema contains nine unrelated string parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that are all shape-checked and discarded. This is misleading rather than clarifying, and gives an agent no way to distinguish it from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or validate-json.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it replaces. The only context is an unrelated arithmetic framing, leaving the agent with no selection guidance at all.

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