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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds nothing beyond that — no note on numeric precision, rounding, or output format — and the 'Returns: {original}' placeholder is a malformed template artifact rather than useful disclosure.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, which is good. The second sentence is a broken placeholder ('{original}') that conveys no information, and the list_bundles pointer is tangential to invoking this 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter surface is simple and fully documented. Still, the description omits the one thing an agent needs here — how this differs from convert_angle — and the malformed Returns clause leaves the output description worse than silence.

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% with enums on both unit parameters, so the schema already documents all three parameters fully. The description repeats the unit list, which is harmless but adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Convert), resource (angles), and enumerates the supported units, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool convert_angle, which appears to cover the same ground, leaving genuine ambiguity about which to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives; the only guidance is a generic pointer to list_bundles for 'conversions' calculators. With a near-identical sibling (convert_angle) in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance is a meaningful gap.

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