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 fully covered. The description adds that output includes both mm and inches, which is useful, but it omits any note about error behavior for unsupported formats. Adequate against an already-lowered bar.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then inputs, then a cross-reference. Nothing is padded and each clause carries information.

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-format explanation is not required, and the tool is a simple one-param lookup. However, the format list mismatch leaves a real gap an agent could trip on, so the definition is not fully complete for a tool this simple.

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?

The description claims the tool accepts 'A0-A10, B0-B10, US Letter, Legal, Tabloid', but the schema enum only contains A0-A8 and no B-series formats at all. This actively misleads the agent into passing values like 'B5' or 'A9' that will be rejected, which is worse than adding nothing over the 100%-covered schema.

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 ('Get dimensions') and resource ('standard paper formats') with explicit units and a named scope of formats. The phrase 'Use for printing' distinguishes it from the many other convert_* siblings that handle angle, area, weight, etc.

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?

'Use for printing' gives implied context, and it points to list_bundles for related 'conversions' calculators, but it never says when this beats convert_* alternatives or what qualifies as a valid use. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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