degrees_to_gradians

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as input validation (e.g., handling negative or large values), precision, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category context. There is no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output. For a basic conversion tool, this might suffice, but it leaves gaps in understanding how to use it effectively in practice.

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 description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter ('degrees'), the schema only indicates it's a required number. The description does not explain what 'degrees' represents (e.g., angle measurement), acceptable ranges, or units. However, since the tool's purpose is straightforward and the parameter count is low, 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 explicitly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'degrees to gradians', making the purpose clear and specific. It also includes domain and category context ('trigonometry, angle_conversion'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'degrees_to_radians' or 'gradians_to_degrees'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'degrees_to_radians' or 'convert_angle', nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The domain/category hint is too vague to serve as practical usage guidance.

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