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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'No persistence' and emphasizing that this is a calculation over unique published ingredient IDs, with no indication of any contradiction with annotations.

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 three short sentences with the main action front-loadedaren't followed by concise clarifications. There is no redundant restatement of the title or schema, and every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter, annotation-covered calculation tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the input domain, the output shape, and side-effect behavior. However, no output schema exists and the description does not define what 'meters' are or list exact return fields, leaving a small gap for response interpretation.

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 only documents an array of UUID strings with uniqueness and maxItems constraints; it does not describe the domain meaning. The description compensates by explaining that the IDs are ingredient IDs, must be published, and are used to produce six balance contribution totals and meters.

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 a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('six balance contribution totals and meters') and scopes it to 'unique published ingredient IDs'. It also explicitly excludes what it is not ('Not nutrition or ingredient weights'), making the tool's purpose easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_ingredient or search_ingredients.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when you need balance contribution totals and meters for unique published ingredient IDs. It includes exclusions ('Not nutrition or ingredient weights. No persistence.'), though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or state when another tool should be preferred.

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