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 only 'Returns adjusted quantities', which is redundant given the output schema, and says nothing about rounding, precision, or scaling zero/edge amounts.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but the four sentences contain redundancy (purpose and 'Use for adjusting recipes' say the same thing) and the closing list_bundles pointer feels bolted on rather than earning its place.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description needn't explain returns or safety, and it doesn't need to. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against 'calculate_recipe_scaling', which for a calc tool in a large suite of near-duplicates is a meaningful omission.

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 three numeric params (amount, original_servings, target_servings) are already documented with types and minimums; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail, and its phrase 'ingredients with quantities' (plural) slightly mismatches the single 'amount' parameter.

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+resource ('Scale recipe quantities to a new servings count'), so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it fails to differentiate from the near-identical sibling 'calculate_recipe_scaling', leaving an agent unable to choose between them from the description alone.

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 adjusting recipes' is essentially a restatement of the purpose rather than real guidance, and no when-to-use/when-not conditions or alternatives (notably the duplicate 'calculate_recipe_scaling') are named. The 'See list_bundles for related cuisine calculators' pointer references a discovery tool, not a replacement for this calculation, so it does not help routing.

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