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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is read-only. The description adds the behavioral detail that water is automatically detected for hydration, which is helpful but not essential given the annotation coverage. 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. Zero wasted 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?

For a simple calculation tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the main behavior (baker's percentage, hydration detection). It could mention that the result includes percentages and possibly number of portions if peso_porcion_g is provided, but it is still quite complete.

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 each parameter is already described. The description adds context that harina_g is always the 100% base and that water detection happens automatically, but these are minor enhancements beyond 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 it calculates baker's percentage, specifying that harina is always 100% and each ingredient is expressed as a percentage of flour weight. It also mentions automatic water detection for hydration, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calcular_hidratacion_pan or escalar_receta.

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 use for calculating baker's percentages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calcular_hidratacion_pan (which focuses only on hydration) or escalar_receta (scaling). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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