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

The limits block (64 KB JSON input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result) and the 12-significant-digit precision are real behavioral facts not present in annotations. However, "side effects: none (read-only, no network, no stored state)" and "deterministic" largely restate readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, so some of the transparency budget is spent on redundancy.

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 content is front-loaded and well structured (When / Not for / Side effects / Limits), but it is delivered twice in full, Spanish and English, roughly doubling length with no added information. The bilingual duplication costs conciseness.

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 simple 3-parameter pure computation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers units, default behavior, precision, sibling exclusion and resource limits — everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the repeated annotation restatements keep it from being fully tight.

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 the schema itself already documents "omit to for all" and the from-unit list, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The one extra detail, 12-significant-digit output, describes results rather than parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Converts acceleration between units") and enumerates the supported units (m/s2, g, ft/s2, gal), plus clarifies the default when "to" is omitted. It explicitly names the nearest sibling it is not (convert-speed), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit "When:" condition (a quantity must be converted with exact definitional factors) and an explicit "Not for:" with the alternative named (convert-speed). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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