computeBatchMacros

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavior: unresolved ingredients are returned with candidate matches, totals are partial with isComplete false, and results are never dropped or approximated. This meaningfully enriches what the annotations alone convey.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the next two pack essential caveats about unresolved ingredients and partial totals. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a detailed input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the key invocation semantics: prerequisites, unresolved handling, and partial-sum behavior. It does not discuss candidate-search cost or suggestCandidates, but the schema already documents those, so the remaining gap is primarily the implicit sibling-tool guidance.

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?

The description maps the core semantics of ingredients to 'nutrition source' and 'weight', and explains the consequence of missing either. With only 50% schema description coverage, this is useful added meaning, though it leaves suggestCandidates and the quantity/unit interplay to the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Total the macros of a whole batch from its ingredients.' It clearly scopes the tool to batch-level aggregation, distinguishing it from single-food tools like getFoodMacros and from planning/portioning tools like portionBatch or planBatchSize.

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?

It gives clear preconditions: each ingredient needs a nutrition source and a weight, and unresolved ingredients are never dropped or approximated. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as getFoodMacros or parseIngredientLine, nor does it name any exclusions or alternatives.

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