number_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the big-int safety caveat ('Big-int safe when GMP is available') and Roman numeral parsing behavior. However, it does not mention error cases, input format limits, or return value shape, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two compact sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds key usage details. Highly efficient.

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 conversion tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and a caveat. It lacks explicit output format or error handling details, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 covers 67% of parameters (to_bases and from_base have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining how to use the 'roman' value in these parameters, and clarifies the value parameter represents an integer string. This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool converts integers between any base 2..36 and Roman numerals. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling converters like base64_encode or url_encode.

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?

It gives explicit instructions for Roman numeral handling ('Use from_base="roman"...' and 'include "roman" in to_bases'), which clarifies how to use the tool. No alternative tools are mentioned, but the unique scope makes usage clear enough.

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