IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this isn't a read-only operation (though conversion tools typically don't modify external state). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose—no information about precision, rounding, error handling, or what the output looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets the baseline but doesn't add meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward conversion tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 conversion tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return format, precision, or error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing output schema by explaining what the tool returns.

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 (value, fromUnit, toUnit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema—it doesn't explain unit relationships, conversion formulas, or special cases. This matches the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 power units'. It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('power units'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling conversion tools like convert_energy or convert_temperature, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from other conversion tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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