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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains inputs and outputs but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a simple calculator, the description is acceptable but lacks explicit read-only or safety guarantees.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first covers purpose and inputs, the second offers usage context and a referral to related tools. No extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It mentions the return of oven time and target temp. It could be more precise about cooking assumptions, but it is sufficiently complete for a calculator tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, each parameter already has a description. The description adds minimal value by restating inputs and clarifying units like 'kg'. It does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool computes meat cooking time and target internal temperature, specifying inputs (meat type, weight kg, doneness) and outputs (oven time, target temp). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing 'cuisine' calculators via 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 says 'Use for kitchen prep' and refers to related calculators, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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