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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile for a pure computation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations (e.g., how quantities are rounded, how units are handled), and 'Returns scaled ingredient list' duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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?

Reasonably front-loaded with the core action first, but the 'Inputs:' enumeration restates the schema and the trailing list_bundles reference is off-topic filler 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?

For a simple, single-purpose calculator with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but leaves the critical disambiguation from calculate_recipe_scale unaddressed, which is the one thing an agent most needs here.

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 target, original, and ingredients are already documented. The description merely restates them ('ingredients list, original servings, new servings') and even introduces 'by a factor', a scaling mode that does not exist in the schema, adding mild confusion rather than clarity.

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 clear verb+resource ('Scale recipe ingredients up or down') with the two scaling modes. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'calculate_recipe_scale', which an agent would reasonably consider interchangeable, leaving a genuine ambiguity unresolved.

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 adjustments' is vague and adds no selection guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer this over calculate_recipe_scale, calculate_recipe_nutrition, or convert_cooking, and the pointer to list_bundles for 'cuisine calculators' is irrelevant to invoking this tool.

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