number_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral constraint via the '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' prefix, indicating quota limits. However, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or any limitations on input values, which would be expected for a conversion tool without an output schema.

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 core functional description is a single, clear sentence. The leading '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' is extraneous to the function but provides necessary usage constraint information; it is front-loaded, which is good, though it adds a bit of noise.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns. 'Convert between' is ambiguous: whether it returns all representations at once or only one target base is unclear given the single input parameter. This is a significant completeness gap for a conversion tool.

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 description for the 'value' parameter covers 100% of its meaning by explaining the prefix conventions (0x, 0o, 0b, or plain decimal). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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' and clearly names the resource and scope: numbers between decimal, hexadecimal, octal, and binary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like base64 or hex_encode, which are string encodings, not numeric base conversions.

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 implies the use case: converting among number bases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The usage context is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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