Cost a recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the tool 'opens an interactive calculator' rather than silently returning a number, and it warns against self-computation. It omits any note on side effects, permissions, or whether the interactive session blocks, and an output schema covers the return payload.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending on the key directive. Every sentence carries content, though the fragments 'given…' and the calculator note could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the main input concepts. It still leaves overheadPerPortion undocumented and provides no basis for choosing between this tool and price-portion, which is a real gap for a 4-parameter tool with an undocumented optional field.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does name the ingredient-side concepts (purchase prices, quantities used, waste percentages, portion yield), mapping to four of the parameters, but the optional overheadPerPortion parameter is never mentioned and no unit/format semantics are clarified.

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 ('cost one batch of a recipe and one portion') plus the key input categories, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling price-portion, so an agent cannot tell the two apart 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use this tool rather than computing food costs itself ('Do not compute food costs yourself — call this'), which is genuine usage guidance. It offers no condition for preferring this over the sibling price-portion, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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