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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the conversion purpose, such as how optional grades or coefficients affect the calculation. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 front-loaded and states the core conversion clearly. The second sentence cross-references list_bundles, which is somewhat tangential to invoking this specific tool but brief. Overall appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 tool has 10 parameters, but schema coverage is full and an output schema exists, so return values and parameter details need not be repeated in the description. Annotations cover safety, and the description states the core conversion. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it does not clarify sibling selection.

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 all ten parameters are documented in the input schema. The description only notes that grades are out of 20 and that the output includes a mention, adding no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema. The 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) and resource (French school grades out of 20) along with the outputs (GPA and academic mention). This distinguishes it from generic grade calculators like calculate_grade_average by the French 0–20 scale and mention conversion.

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 only guidance is 'See list_bundles for related education calculators,' which points to a catalog rather than explaining when to choose this tool over siblings. Usage is implied by the conversion purpose, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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