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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape {input, decimal_value, result}, which is modestly useful context but partially redundant given an output schema exists. No auth, limits, or error behavior disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and supported bases. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description carries a light burden and covers purpose and return shape adequately. The one notable omission is sibling disambiguation from calculate_number_base_convert, which for a large overlapping toolset matters more than usual.

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 all three params documented and base bounds (2-36) enforced in the schema. The description only restates the 2-36 range already present in the schema, adding no new meaning (e.g., accepted digit formats for values above 9). 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Convert numbers between bases' with concrete examples of supported bases. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'calculate_number_base_convert', which appears to cover the same operation. That overlap keeps it below a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this over the near-identical 'calculate_number_base_convert' sibling, nor any prerequisites for 'value' formatting. The 'See list_bundles' pointer is a cross-reference, not usage guidance. Effectively no when/when-not instruction.

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