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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It claims support for vegetables and sous-vide, which are not in the input schema, and mentions 'doneness' as an input that does not exist. This inaccuracy undermines transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, inputs, outputs, and a pointer to related tools. The only flaw is some inaccuracies, but the structure is clean.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers basics but omits critical details: the actual enum values for food and method, the weight unit mismatch, and the absence of 'doneness' as a parameter. This makes it incomplete despite its brevity.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by listing inputs (food type, weight g, method, doneness) and outputs. However, it contains errors: weight is in kg, not grams; method excludes 'sous-vide'; doneness is not a parameter. Thus it adds some value but is unreliable.

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 that the tool estimates cooking time for meat, fish, or vegetables based on weight, method, and doneness. It distinguishes from sibling calculators like 'calculate_cooking_conversion' by specifying its unique inputs and output.

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 suggests using it for 'kitchen planning' and references 'list_bundles' for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings (e.g., 'calculate_meat_cooking_time') or state when not to use this tool.

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