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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output shape ('time min and oven temp °C'), which is mildly useful, but discloses nothing about limitations, supported ranges, or edge cases. Adequate but thin given the annotation coverage.

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 with the core purpose, which is good, but the middle sentences repeat the schema inputs and outputs that are already structured elsewhere, and 'Use for cooking' earns no place. The trailing list_bundles pointer is a non-sequitur that dilutes focus.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety, so the core is covered. What is missing is disambiguation from the many cooking-related siblings and any note on supported meats/weights — the gaps that actually affect correct selection.

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 100% with enums on meat_type and doneness, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description merely restates 'meat type, weight kg, target doneness' without adding units guidance, ranges, or defaults beyond what the schema shows — baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Compute oven cooking time for meat') plus the three driving inputs, which is clearly better than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from its near-identical siblings calculate_meat_cooking and calculate_cooking_time, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone. The mismatched word 'cut' (not an actual parameter) also blurs the scope slightly.

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?

'Use for cooking' is essentially no guidance — it does not say when this tool is preferable to calculate_meat_cooking, calculate_cooking_time, calculate_cooking_conversion, or convert_cooking. There are no exclusion conditions, prerequisites, or routing hints despite a large set of overlapping cooking siblings.

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