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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as rounding behavior or return format, but this is not a significant gap for a simple converter.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence: 'Convert between speed units: km/h, m/s, mph, knots, ft/s.' Every word adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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, full parameter descriptions, comprehensive annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention rounding or precision, but that is not essential for a straightforward 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description and enums for from/to. The description repeats the unit list but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('speed units'), and enumerates the exact units ('km/h, m/s, mph, knots, ft/s'). This distinguishes it from sibling converter tools 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 implies usage for speed conversions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Given the many sibling converters, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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