degrees_to_radians

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 mentions 'high precision,' which adds some context about output quality, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), performance characteristics, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, 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 and front-loaded: 'Convert degrees to radians with high precision.' It wastes no words and immediately conveys the core function. The domain and category tags in parentheses are additional but non-essential, maintaining efficiency without clutter.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines, which are necessary for an agent to use it effectively. While the purpose is clear, the overall context is insufficient for a well-informed invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'degrees' of type 'number' but no semantic details. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the tool's purpose, such as expected units, valid ranges, or examples. Since schema coverage is low, the description does not compensate, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the simple, single-parameter nature.

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 purpose: 'Convert degrees to radians with high precision.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('degrees to radians'), and quality ('high precision'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_angle' or 'radians_to_degrees', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 minimal usage guidance through the domain and category tags ('trigonometry, angle_conversion'), which imply context but do not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or direct references to sibling tools like 'radians_to_radians' or 'convert_angle', leaving the agent with little practical direction.

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