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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the half-life assumption (5-hour) which is a specific behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any other behavioral aspects like external dependencies or mutation potential, but for a calculator, this is minimally 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 three sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action, then provides usage context, and finally mentions return and related tools. 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 simple calculator with two parameters and an output schema (implied), the description covers what it does, how to use it, what it returns, and where to find related tools. No critical gaps for execution.

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 paraphrases the parameters ('caffeine mg, time since intake') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. No additional units, constraints, or examples.

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 'Compute', the resource 'caffeine in body', and the scope 'over time using 5-hour half-life'. It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_caffeine_half_life and calculate_caffeine_intake by focusing on remaining caffeine for sleep planning.

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 sleep planning', providing clear context. It also mentions 'See list_bundles for related sante calculators', which hints at alternatives but does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use.

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