calculate_fuel_economy_conversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Returns converted economy,' which is minimal. It does not mention edge cases, precision, or constraints (e.g., value must be >=0.1) beyond the 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 description is concise with two sentences: the first effectively states the purpose and units, and the second adds context and a pointer to bundles. The repetitive 'Inputs...' line is minor waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing the return value is acceptable. However, the description omits input constraints (like minimum value) and does not clarify how this tool differs from the similar sibling 'convert_fuel_consumption', leaving a gap in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions and enums. The description redundantly lists 'Inputs: value, from-unit, to-unit' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the 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 'Convert between fuel economy units' and lists the specific units (L/100km, mpg-US, mpg-UK, km/L), which defines the tool's scope. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tool 'convert_fuel_consumption', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provides a use case ('Use for car comparisons across regions') and references list_bundles for related calculators, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide specific alternatives among siblings.

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