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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool does (calculations) and its outputs, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, does not persist data, or has no auth requirements. The 'Calculator' title implies a non-mutating computation, but the description lacks explicit 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, front-loaded sentence with a clear title prefix. It conveys the core purpose and distinguishing output without any waste, earning 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully cover inputs and outputs. It does state the main inputs and outputs, but it omits the optional targetFoodCostPct parameter and provides no guidance on currency/unit consistency or return format. This is adequate for a straightforward calculator but leaves gaps for a fully informed invocation.

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%, and the description only loosely maps 'quantities' to qty and 'unit prices' to unitCost. It does not explain the required 'servings' parameter or the optional 'targetFoodCostPct' parameter, nor does it clarify the format/constraints of the ingredients array. Since the schema descriptions are empty, the description needed to compensate but only partially does.

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 the specific verb 'Cost out' with the resource 'recipe', clearly stating the outputs: total cost, cost per serving, and suggested menu price. This distinguishes it from sibling calculators like recipe_scaler_calculator, which focuses on scaling rather than costing.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('Cost out any recipe in seconds') and what inputs to provide (ingredients, quantities, unit prices). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is unmistakable given the title and output focus.

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