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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description has less burden. It adds the computation basis and mentions the return shape, but since an output schema exists that information is redundant. No deeper behavioral traits such as edge cases, validation limits, or permission needs are disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the description wastes space listing inputs and outputs that are already fully specified by the input and output schemas. The final sentence pointing to list_bundles for 'animaux' calculators is vague and not clearly useful for invoking this tool.

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 simple calculator with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate to invoke the tool correctly. However, it misses the key contextual decision of when to use this general pet-food calculator versus the more specific calculate_dog_food or calculate_cat_food siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's input list is redundant and slightly imprecise: it says 'life stage' while the schema parameter is age_years, which adds no meaning and could mildly confuse. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 daily food portion in grams for dogs and cats, based on weight, age, and activity. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools calculate_dog_food and calculate_cat_food, so it falls short of full sibling-aware clarity.

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 usage guidance is 'Use for pet feeding,' which is too generic to tell an agent when to select this tool over calculate_dog_food or calculate_cat_food. There is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternative routing.

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