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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and mutability profile is fully covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond a cryptic 'Returns: {original}' fragment and the bundle cross-reference; no contradiction, but no meaningful enrichment either.

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 short sentences with the core conversion action front-loaded. The 'Returns: {original}' fragment is an unhelpful artifact that does not earn its place, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, given the enormous sibling surface with overlapping conversion tools, the definition lacks any routing guidance an agent would need to pick this tool confidently.

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 per-property descriptions for value, from_unit, and to_unit, and both unit parameters carry enums. The description's unit list echoes the enum values but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('power values') and enumerates the supported units (W, kW, HP, BTU/h, cal/s), which differentiates it from generic convert_energy or convert_pressure siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles overlapping cases, so it is clear but not maximally discriminating.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_energy, which also deals with power/energy units. The only guidance is a pointer to list_bundles for 'conversions' calculators, which is a discovery hint rather than usage direction or exclusions.

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