IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (implying potential side effects), but the description doesn't elaborate on what those might be. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic conversion function - no information about precision, error handling, or what 'conversion' entails operationally. With annotations covering the safety profile minimally, this earns a baseline score for adding no value beyond what's already structured.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward conversion tool and gets directly to the point with zero wasted text.

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 simple conversion tool with complete parameter documentation and basic annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format (presumably a converted value), and it lacks context about precision, rounding, or error cases. The description meets basic requirements but leaves operational details unspecified.

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 documentation and enum values. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain unit relationships, conversion factors, or special considerations. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no additional parameter context.

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's purpose: 'Convert between different energy units'. This specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('energy units'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_power' or 'convert_temperature', which perform similar unit conversions for different physical 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling conversion tools for other quantities (power, temperature, angle, etc.) or explain that this is specifically for energy unit conversions. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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