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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output format ({input, factor}) but does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a simple conversion tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 consists of three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide use context, input/output details, and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, output format, and a hint to related bundles. It could be more complete by mentioning precision or error scenarios, but it is sufficient for a conversion tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by grouping units into metric, imperial, and nautical miles, which helps agents understand the enum values beyond the abbreviations. This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 distance using a specific verb ('Convert distance'), lists the exact units (metric and imperial plus nautical miles), and provides use cases (travel, sport, engineering). This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like convert_area or convert_speed.

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 mentions use cases ('travel, sport, or engineering') and points to list_bundles for related calculators, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives. More explicit exclusion guidance would improve clarity.

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