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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Returns: {input}', which is vague and does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or output format. This is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, usage, and input/output. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the sibling mention is somewhat tangential.

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 simple conversion tool, the description covers the basic operation and use cases. However, the output description is ambiguous ('Returns: {input}'), and there is no mention of validation or precision, leaving gaps in complete understanding.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond naming the params ('value, from, to'), so baseline 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 it converts speed between specific units (km/h, mph, m/s, knots, ft/s) and provides use cases (travel, sport, maritime/aviation). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling conversion tools, which have different units, so it loses the fifth point.

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 clear usage context ('travel, sport, or maritime/aviation') and directs to a bundle for related calculators, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions.

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