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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose side effects or safety implications; however, as a calculator, it is assumed stateless and read-only. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the core operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds useful cross-reference without any wasted words. It is concise and efficient.

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?

The description mentions output types (GPA, mention) but does not explain the conversion formula or mention scale. With an output schema presumably providing structure, the description is minimally adequate but could be more informative about expected results.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., formulas, ranges). Baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource 'French school grades (out of 20) to GPA and academic mention'. This distinguishes it from sibling calculators; while many siblings compute things, this one uniquely targets French grade conversion to GPA and mention.

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 explicitly states when to use: when converting French grades to GPA. It also directs users to 'list_bundles for related education calculators', providing context for alternatives. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria.

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