convert_paper_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait by naming 'authoritative ISO/TAPPI' standards as the conversion basis, which speaks to accuracy provenance. However, it omits precision/rounding behavior, error handling for incompatible unit families (e.g. caliper to weight), and the grade-dependence of basis-weight conversions, so transparency is only partial.

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 that states the verb, the standards basis, and the three unit families with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter converter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It is missing the important caveat that basis-weight conversions are grade-dependent (Bond vs Book/Text vs Cover are already in the enum, implying this) and gives no hint of return format or precision, so it is adequate but not 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% and both required unit parameters carry enums, so the schema already documents how to supply value/from_unit/to_unit. The description adds context on which unit families exist but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Performs conversions') and resource (paper units), and enumerates the three unit families it spans: GSM, basis weight (Bond/Book/Text/Cover), and caliper. This clearly separates it from the sibling calculators, though it never names them explicitly, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The agent can infer that this is the unit-conversion tool versus the spine/weight/imposition calculators, but that inference is never stated, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing a grade to convert basis weight) are given.

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