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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, already indicating safe read operation. Description adds value by disclosing bidirectional behavior (agua→% or %→agua) and that it classifies hydration and provides example breads. No contradictions.

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 sentences efficiently cover core functionality and additional features (bidirectional, classification, examples). Front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant words.

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?

Given no output schema, description provides sufficient context: what inputs are needed, what output to expect (hydration percentage or water grams), plus classification and examples. Lacks specifics on classification thresholds or error handling, but adequate for a simple 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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions bidirectional modes, which aligns with the 'modo' parameter's enum descriptions. Does not add novel semantics beyond what schema already provides for each parameter.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates bread dough hydration, either from water to percentage or percentage to water. Uses specific verb 'Calcula' and resource 'hidratación de pan'. Distinguishes from sibling 'calcular_porcentaje_panadero' by focusing on bread hydration and bidirectional functionality.

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?

Description implies usage for bread hydration calculations (e.g., when adjusting water or flour), but does not explicitly state when to avoid or recommend alternatives. No direct comparison to related siblings like 'calcular_porcentaje_panadero'. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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