furigana_convert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the per-token reading breakdown, which is not present in the schema or annotations. This goes beyond the safe-read annotation and gives the agent a clearer expectation of the tool's output behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action, object, and output style without any filler. Every word contributes, and the per-token breakdown is an efficient addition.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description covers purpose and output characteristics sufficiently. It lacks some broader context like input prerequisites or nuances of how the breakdown is structured, but the combination of schema, annotations, and description is adequate for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already explains for 'text' and 'to'. It confirms the general target scripts but adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'convert' with a clear resource ('kanji-mixed Japanese text') and target scripts ('hiragana, katakana, or romaji'), plus a per-token reading breakdown. This distinguishes it from siblings like furigana_classify and furigana_name_readings, which suggest different operations or scopes.

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 states what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it over alternatives such as furigana_classify or furigana_name_readings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the description alone.

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