math_number_to_words

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses conversion to English/Spanish words, short vs long scale, and maximum value. Additional info on request via describe_tool is noted, but return format or error behavior is omitted.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose, but the initial 'Menu ID: number_to_words.' is redundant with the tool name. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: languages, scales, and max value. However, it does not specify that 'value' must be a string representation of an integer, nor the output format.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description adds meaning by explaining that 'value' is an integer converted to words and 'language' supports English or Spanish. It also differentiates scales, which is not evident from the schema.

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 specifies the verb (convert), resource (integer to words), and distinguishes from siblings like roman_numerals by detailing language options and scale systems (short vs long). It also states the maximum supported value (decillion).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., conversion_string_number or describe_tool). The mention of using describe_tool for full page guidance hints at more info but lacks direct usage context.

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