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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world calculation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the basic return shape ('cost per serving and total'), but because an output schema exists, it adds limited behavioral context beyond structured data.

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 short and front-loaded with the core computation. The final sentence about list_bundles is useful but slightly tangential; otherwise there is little wasted text.

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 rich annotations and the presence of an output schema, the definition is largely complete for tool selection and invocation. The main remaining gap is the nested ingredient parameter semantics, especially total_quantity versus used_quantity.

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 more burden. It explains that ingredients need cost and quantity used and that servings are required, but it does not clarify the distinction between total_quantity and used_quantity, which is important for the nested ingredient object.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compute food cost per serving from ingredient costs. It also names target contexts (restaurants, meal-prep services), making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby cost or recipe tools.

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?

It gives context for use ('Use for restaurants, meal-prep services'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not say when not to use it or name direct alternatives among the many sibling cost/recipe calculators.

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