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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by specifying that the returned list includes from/to ids and option schemas, which gives the agent an idea of the response content in the absence of an output schema.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the action verb 'List' and packs essential information (resource, metadata content) without any fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what the tool returns (from/to ids and option schemas). The annotations cover safety and idempotence, making the overall context complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, but it does mention per-converter option schemas, which are relevant to the converters themselves. This is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('available code converters') and the exact information provided (from/to ids and per-converter option schemas). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_code, which performs conversions, and other list tools like list_scss_mixins, which target different domains.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool to enumerate code converters with their metadata. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward enough that no exclusion guidance is needed. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit alternatives.

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