units_endpoint_v1_enrich_units_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the cost ('1 credit per request') and the conversion nature, but it does not disclose output format, whether the operation is read-only, limitations on supported units, or error behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap – an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's side effects or response structure.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost noted in the second sentence. There is zero fluff or repetition; every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and cost. It does not describe the return value format, but this is a minor omission given the simplicity. The presence of examples in the schema compensates for missing details. Overall, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though a note on output shape would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., examples and defaults). It does not clarify the exact format of input_string beyond the schema's example, but the schema handles this adequately, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('Normalizes and converts') and resource ('physical measurements (weight, length, volume)') and distinguishes it from sibling enrich tools (date, amount, name, etc.). The scope is explicit and actionable.

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 main description does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but the input_string schema description includes 'USE THIS TOOL for automated unit normalization', which gives a direct call to action. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to tools like enrich_amount for currency or other conversions, leaving the routing mostly implicit.

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