convert_weight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally and the description is not required to restate it. What the description omits is behavior an agent actually needs: which unit strings are accepted, case sensitivity, precision/rounding of the result, and what happens on incompatible or unknown units.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. But the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficiency, since a single clause carries no scope or format detail.

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?

Three required parameters, zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotation detail about results: an agent cannot reliably call this without guessing the unit identifiers. The description should at minimum enumerate or link the accepted unit set and note the result's numeric format.

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%, and there are no enums, so the critical piece of semantics — the accepted unit vocabulary for 'from' and 'to' (e.g., kg, lb, oz, st, t) — is documented nowhere. The description adds no meaning beyond the self-explanatory parameter names, which is a serious gap for a unit-conversion tool where the identifier strings are the whole contract.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('weight/mass units'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling converters (convert_length, convert_volume, convert_speed, etc.) by domain. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling family or note that a generic convert tool is not available, so differentiation comes only from the resource noun.

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 statement of when to use this versus convert_length/convert_volume/convert_temperature, and no guidance on assumptions (e.g., mass vs. weight under gravity, metric vs. imperial). The name plus 'weight/mass' implies the context, but nothing is stated.

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