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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns an adjusted recipe but doesn't elaborate on output structure (although output schema exists). It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for a calculation tool, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and context, then provides necessary additional context about inputs, output, and related tools. Highly efficient.

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 the 5 required parameters and existence of output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input categories, output nature, and related resources. It is nearly complete; only minor detail like mentioning the output schema type might be added, but not necessary.

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. The description adds value by grouping parameters (altitude m, ingredients) and clarifying the high-level role of inputs beyond the schema's individual descriptions. This aids understanding without being redundant.

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 'Adjust' and the resource 'baking recipe for high altitude', providing a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing altitude adjustment and referencing related calculators in list_bundles.

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 explicitly says 'Use for mountain cooking', which indicates context of use. It also points to list_bundles for related cuisine calculators, offering direction for alternatives. However, it does not specify when not to use or provide explicit exclusions.

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