cooking_tips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the covered dietary goals, but does not disclose whether tips are generic/personalized, whether they include warnings, or whether the tool returns a static list. The content scope is clear, but behavioral details are minimal.

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 a single, compact, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope with zero filler. It earns its place entirely.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is sufficient to inform basic usage. It could be slightly richer by mentioning the 'all' default or return style, but it is not incomplete for practical invocation.

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% for the single `goal` parameter, so the schema already provides the parameter's meaning. The description repeats the goal categories but adds no extra semantic detail (e.g., format, defaults, or examples), fitting the baseline for high coverage.

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 identifies the tool's scope: practical kitchen techniques for removing potassium/phosphorus, controlling sodium, and supplementing calories. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on cooking methods rather than food eligibility, substitution, or lab interpretation, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no references to sibling tools or any 'when-to-use/not-use' statements, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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