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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes inputs and returns but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or exact return format. For a simple conversion tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage context, and input/return explanation with reference. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, enums, existing output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose, inputs, and usage context. It also directs users to related tools via list_bundles, making it complete.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds value by listing the units in a readable format and providing use-case context. It supplements the enum values with more familiar unit names (e.g., L/s vs l_min).

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 clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'flow rate' with a specific list of units (L/s, L/min, L/h, m³/h, gpm, cfm). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning it's for flow rate conversion and referencing 'list_bundles' for related calculators.

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?

The description provides context for use: 'plumbing, HVAC, or industrial design.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives, but the reference to 'list_bundles' for related 'conversions' calculators offers some guidance for finding alternative tools.

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