convert_unit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds illustrative input→output examples, but does not disclose behavior such as supported unit edge cases, error handling, or whether conversions are exact/approximate, which a complete behavioral disclosure would include.

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 starts with a one-sentence purpose, follows with three compact examples, and then a brief Args list. No wasted words, though the repetitive '-> Fahrenheit/Miles/Seconds' could be slightly consolidated. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, unit categories, usage examples, and parameter meaning. It does not exhaustively list all supported units, but the illustrative 'e.g.' list is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaning: value is a 'numerical value', from_unit is a 'source unit string' with realistic examples, and to_unit is a 'target unit string'. The examples map arguments to concrete conversions, giving the agent more than the bare schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('quantities between physical units'), naming four unit families. The three concrete examples make the purpose unmistakable and naturally differentiate it from sibling tools like evaluate_math_expression or financial_calculator.

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?

Clear context is provided through the primary sentence and examples, making it obvious the tool is for unit conversion. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like perform_arithmetic, so it falls one step short of fully explicit guidance.

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