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 that both binary and decimal units are supported, which is useful behavioral context, but the 'Returns: {input}' line reads as an unhelpful placeholder rather than real disclosure about output format or precision/rounding.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is somewhat wasteful: 'Returns: {input}' is a boilerplate placeholder that adds no information, and the list_bundles pointer is tangential, but the overall length is efficient.

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?

For a three-parameter, fully schema-documented conversion tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential nuance that both binary and decimal units are handled. It need not explain return values because an output schema exists, though details like rounding or precision conventions are left unstated.

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 the schema fully documents value, from, and to, including the enum of units. The description's mention of binary and decimal hints at the kB vs KiB distinction, but the enums already expose kib, mib, and gib, so no meaningful parameter detail is added beyond the structured fields.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Convert between digital storage units') and scopes it to binary and decimal units, which distinguishes it from generic convert_* siblings such as convert_area or convert_distance. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource naming makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only pointer, 'See list_bundles for related conversions calculators,' directs to a discovery bundle rather than explaining when this specific tool should be chosen over the many sibling convert_* and calculate_* conversion tools.

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