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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: non-linear scaling for certain ingredient categories, practical rounding, oven temperature unchanged, and an indication of time adjustment. This goes beyond the annotations and fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, key behaviors, and constraints. No redundant or extraneous information. The first sentence immediately states the core function, and subsequent sentences add critical details.

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?

The tool has three parameters (all required) and no output schema. The description explains the input processing but does not describe the output format. Given the complexity, an agent might need to know what the result looks like. Without output schema, the description should provide more detail on the return value.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how the 'categoria' property affects scaling (non-linear for yeast, etc.). While the schema already lists category options, the description provides operational context that helps the agent understand parameter significance.

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 tool scales a recipe to more or fewer servings. It specifies non-linear scaling for yeast, baking powder, and spices, practical rounding, and that oven temperature does not change. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other recipe calculations (e.g., hydration, bread temperatures).

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 indicates the tool is for scaling recipes. It explains what it does (non-linear factors, rounding, oven temp constant) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know this is the right tool for scaling.

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