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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral trait of using binary (1024-based) sizing, but this is also repeated in the parameter schema description for 'from'. No contradictions exist, and no additional operational details are needed given the simple nature of the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the essential detail about binary sizing. Every word earns its place with no waste, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the converter, the tool description combined with the rich input schema (with enums and descriptions) and output schema provides complete context. The description clarifies the unit set and conversion base, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter (value, from, to) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a storage unit converter with the specific verb 'Convert', names the exact units (bit, byte, kilobyte, etc.), and specifies the binary (1024-based) sizing. This distinguishes it from other converter siblings like length-converter or temperature-converter.

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 states the conversion domain (digital storage units) and notes the binary sizing, giving clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the units makes the usage obvious among sibling converter tools.

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