convert_pressure

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 'Returns: {input}' which is vague about the exact output format, precision, or rounding behavior. It does not disclose any side effects (likely none) but could be more specific.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, use cases, and input/output structure. No unnecessary words. The reference to list_bundles is well-placed at the end.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It mentions 'Returns: {input}' which is somewhat redundant but acceptable. It could add detail about precision or error handling, but overall it is adequate for a conversion tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description lists units and inputs but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it converts pressure between specific units (Pa, kPa, MPa, bar, psi, atm, mmHg, mbar, torr) and lists use cases (engineering, tires, weather). This distinguishes it from sibling converters for other quantities.

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?

Description provides clear usage context (engineering, tires, weather) and references list_bundles for related calculators, implying alternatives for complex conversions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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