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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only a tautological 'Returns: {input}' which conveys no real behavioral information.

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?

Front-loaded unit list is good, but 'Returns: {input}' is a meaningless placeholder that earns no place, and the trailing 'See list_bundles...' pointer is tangential to invoking this tool.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers units and usage domains. With full schema coverage and annotations, it is essentially complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 both from/to carry enums, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description merely restates 'Inputs: value, from, to' without adding format or constraint meaning, 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+resource ('Convert area') and enumerates the full unit set (m², km², ha, are, acre, ft², yd², cm²). This distinguishes it from sibling converters like convert_distance or convert_volume, though the shared 'convert_*' family is not explicitly contrasted.

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 real estate, agriculture, or construction' gives domain context but no when-not guidance and never names the alternative converters an agent should pick instead for length, volume, or angle.

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