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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects. The description adds that the ratio adjusts automatically to cacao percentage, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose default behaviors or output format beyond 'proporciones exactas'.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the crucial automatic adjustment behavior. No redundant or extraneous 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 simple calculator with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be slightly more complete by specifying the output format (e.g., 'proporciones en gramos') or clarifying the result type. Still, it covers the essential purpose and inputs.

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%, with each parameter already having detailed descriptions including defaults and cacao ranges. The tool description restates the parameter choices but adds minimal new meaning beyond summarizing the schema.

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 verb ('Calcula las proporciones exactas') and the resource (ganache). It specifies the input factors (chocolate type and texture) and distinguishes this tool from sibling calculators by being specific to ganache.

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 ganache proportion calculations via its specific input parameters, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling calculator tools.

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