energy_convert

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose the cost and payment mechanism ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a behavioral trait. However, it omits what the tool does, return behavior, or any operational constraints, leaving major gaps.

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 short but severely under-specified. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity; brevity here sacrifices necessary information. The structure is flat and uses a dash, but the content is inadequate.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter detail, and only a vague 'Converters tool' label, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the input structure, output format, edge cases, or even the basic conversion functionality.

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 schema has a single 'params' property described only as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which provides no meaningful semantic detail. The description adds no parameter context, so the agent has no idea what keys or values to supply for an energy conversion.

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 'energy convert — Converters tool' merely restates the tool name and gives a generic label. It does not specify the action or resource, nor does it distinguish from similar converters like convert_units or speed_convert.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable use cases, exclusions, or differences from sibling converter tools. The only additional info is the cost, which is not usage guidance.

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