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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns time in minutes and a target internal temperature, which is useful context, but it misstates the parameter behavior (g vs kg, sous-vide vs boil), diluting trust in the behavioral claims.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence is efficient, but the following sentences are partly redundant with the schema and repeat incorrect unit/enum details, so not every clause earns its place. Ordering is reasonable but accuracy suffers.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return-value sentence is not strictly needed, and the parameter enumeration mis-describes the actual schema (wrong unit, phantom 'doneness', wrong method list). For a 3-required-param tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent with incorrect expectations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does attempt to enumerate inputs. But it is inaccurate: it says 'weight g' while the schema uses weight_kg, lists 'sous-vide' which is not in the method enum (oven/grill/boil), and mentions a 'doneness' input that does not exist in the schema. The misleading detail makes it worse than no compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (estimate) and resource (cooking time) plus scope (meat, fish, vegetables) and the factors considered, so the purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like calculate_meat_cooking_time or calculate_meat_cooking, which appear to cover the same domain.

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 only guidance is the vague 'Use for kitchen planning' and a pointer to list_bundles for 'cuisine' calculators, which is not a selection cue. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against the nearly identical meat-cooking siblings is given.

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