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

Without annotations, the description adds value by specifying the return object structure ({converted_size, eu_size, original_size}). However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return format. Every word earns its place, and there is no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and high schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: conversion systems, return fields, and a pointer to related tools. It could mention conversion approximations or constraints but is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameters are self-explanatory. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; the mention of return values is about output, not parameters. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool converts shoe sizes between EU, US (M/W), and UK systems, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'convert_shoe_size' or 'calculate_shoe_size', which could cause ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only references 'list_bundles' for related calculators, which is vague and does not help an agent decide when to invoke this specific tool over its siblings.

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