Convert numbers between formats

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds nothing on top — no note on accepted input syntax (e.g., prefixes like 0x), how size/auto-detection resolves, or whether conversion is lossless. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries little additional behavioral signal.

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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from trimming redundancy — it largely restates the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and 100% schema coverage documents the parameters. Given the low complexity of a pure conversion tool, the definition is workable, though it leaves the agent inferring the tool's intent and scope entirely from structured fields.

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%, so both the inputs object (with text/size) and instance_id are already documented, including the format list. The description adds no syntax or format semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the work.

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?

States a verb ("Convert") and a resource ("numbers") but "different formats" is vague — the actual format set (hex, decimal, binary, ascii) lives only in the schema. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_int or put_int, which also manipulate numeric values.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no named alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether this is for display formatting versus database value mutation, or how it relates to get_int/put_int.

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