calculate_pressure_convert

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the input structure and return value as '{original}', which is vague. It does not explain precision, rounding, error handling, or the actual output structure. The claim of supporting units like kPa and MPa contradicts the schema's enum, creating confusion.

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 short and includes essential purpose and sample use cases, but the reference to list_bundles adds minor overhead and could be removed for brevity. It is adequately concise but not optimally structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, list of units, output schema exists), the description fails to explain the return format, behavior for unsupported units, or error conditions. The unit mismatch further reduces 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?

Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool's description lists units (Pa, kPa, MPa, bar, psi, atm, mmHg, mbar, torr) that are partially inconsistent with the schema's enum (missing kPa, MPa, torr). This misalignment may lead agents to try unsupported values, reducing reliability.

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 pressure between multiple units and lists specific use cases (engineering, weather, medicine). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'convert_pressure' which may serve a similar purpose, slightly reducing clarity.

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 suggests use cases (engineering, weather, medicine) and points to list_bundles for related calculators, indicating alternatives exist. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus others, such as convert_pressure.

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