calculate_food_waste_cost

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool defaults to the USDA average ($1,500/year/household) if no user input is provided, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence clearly states purpose and default behavior, second provides usage guidance. No redundant phrases, front-loaded with key information.

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 has only two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, default behavior, and recommended use cases. It is complete for this level of complexity.

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%, with both parameters described. The description adds context that weekly_waste_usd defaults to USDA average if omitted, and mentions annual and lifetime cost. This provides additional meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 calculates annual and lifetime cost of household food waste. It specifies the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'cost of household food waste', differentiating it from sibling tools like get_food_shelf_life or is_food_safe_to_eat.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks how much food waste costs, or wants to evaluate the ROI of a food-tracking habit.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it. Given the siblings are unrelated, this is sufficient.

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