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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the input is a weighted ingredient list and that output is a macro breakdown per serving and total, which is modest added context but nothing about rounding, missing-data handling, or unit assumptions.

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 operation and scope, which is good, but the trailing 'See list_bundles for related cuisine calculators' sentence contributes little and the middle 'Inputs' sentence mixes schema-relevant claims with an inaccurate parameter.

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 tool whose only input is a structured array requiring name plus four per-100g macro values plus quantity_g, the description never explains that per-100g values are scaled by quantity_g, nor the servings basis for the 'per serving' figure. With a rich output schema the return side is fine, but the input contract is under-explained.

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 0% and the single parameter is a nested array whose six per-100g/quantity fields are undocumented anywhere. Worse, the description cites a 'servings count' input that does not exist in the schema (only 'ingredients' is accepted, additionalProperties=false), which can mislead an agent.

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 total and per-serving calories/protein/carbs/fat for a recipe. It is distinguishable from neighbors like calculate_recipe_scale or calculate_food_cost_per_serving, though it never names a sibling it is not.

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 meal planning or nutrition labels' gives an implied usage context but no when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many nutrition/recipe calculators. The pointer to list_bundles is a routing hint rather than a usage rule.

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