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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly implies a pure calculation but omits that salt and yeast percentages are also required inputs (they appear only as outputs). This can mislead the agent about the full set of parameters needed.

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, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and lists core inputs/outputs efficiently, though it slightly sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

As a 5-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description should clarify return format and units, and fully specify inputs. It omits saltPct and yeastPct, leaves weight units ambiguous, and does not describe how results are presented. This is incomplete for a calculator 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explicitly maps 'ball count' to balls, 'weight' to ballWeight, and 'hydration' to hydration, but fails to mention saltPct and yeastPct as inputs, even though they are required. Units (e.g., grams) are also unspecified.

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 that this tool calculates pizza dough by baker's percentage, with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('pizza dough'). It lists the key inputs (ball count, weight, hydration) and outputs (flour, water, salt, yeast weights), making its purpose distinct from sibling calculators.

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 implies usage (for pizza dough batches) but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like recipe_scaler_calculator. It does not provide exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage guidance vague.

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