unit_convert

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 adds one genuinely useful behavioral note – that offset units like degC are handled (i.e. affine, not just ratio, conversion) – but says nothing about supported unit tokens, error behavior, or the returned value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the offset-unit caveat is appended efficiently rather than padding.

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?

No output schema, so the description should say what is returned, but it does not (presumably a number). For a simple conversion utility this is mildly important; the missing unit-format and return info keep it at a minimum-viable level.

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%, so the schema documents nothing beyond titles. The description implies value/units but does not define the accepted unit-string format; the 'degC' example is the only token-level hint, which partially compensates but leaves from_unit/to_unit syntax undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Convert a numeric value between units.' An agent immediately understands the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling unit_calculate or physical_constant, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. Given siblings like unit_calculate and physical_constant that could plausibly overlap, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap, though the purpose is self-evident.

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