conversion_km_to_miles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing beyond the conversion itself. It does not state rounding/precision behavior, how negative or zero values are handled, or what the numeric output looks like (though an output schema exists to cover the return value). For a pure stateless function little disclosure is needed, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single sentence with the operation and both units front-loaded. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter pure conversion with an output schema covering the return value, the description is essentially complete: input unit, output unit, and operation are all clear. Only minor edge-case context (precision, negatives) is absent, which is low-stakes here.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate for the single undocumented 'value' parameter. It partially does so by framing the input as 'a distance from kilometers,' implying the parameter is a numeric distance in km, but it gives no detail on units, accepted range, or whether negative values are valid.

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 states a specific verb and resource with a clear directional conversion: 'Convert a distance from kilometers to miles.' This distinguishes it in practice from conversion_miles_to_km, though the distinction comes entirely from the direction baked into the name rather than any explicit sibling comparison or scope statement.

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?

Usage is heavily implied by the strictly-typed name and description; there is no ambiguity about when a km-to-miles conversion applies and the inverse sibling is self-evidently distinct. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer conversion_miles_to_km, and no stated prerequisites.

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