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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output format ('grams/day and meal split'), which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose assumptions (e.g., healthy pet, generic food) or potential limitations.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and scope, second lists inputs and output format. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers selection and basic usage. It specifies pet types, input categories, and output format, though it could mention output schema reference.

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 coverage is 100% but the description adds value by grouping inputs into broader categories ('life stage') and clarifying the output (grams/day and meal split). This goes beyond the concise schema descriptions.

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 daily food portions for dogs and cats, specifying the verb ('Compute'), resource ('daily food portion'), and scope ('dogs and cats'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like calculate_dog_food or calculate_cat_food.

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 advises using the tool for pet feeding and lists required inputs ('animal type, weight, activity, life stage'), plus references related calculators via list_bundles. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for specific scenarios.

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