planBatchSize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: sizing by declaredServings 'always warns', and the result includes arithmetic for verification. This helps the agent anticipate output behavior and understand why warnings may appear. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the sizing guidance is concise, the warning is explicit, and the return behavior is stated. Every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding. This is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 nested schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: what input is needed (explicit eater list and slot sizes), which sizing methods are preferred, what to avoid (declaredServings), and what the return contains. It does not explain the interaction between basis fields and slot sizing, which a complex tool might warrant, but it is mostly complete for correct 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 33%, so the description carries extra responsibility. It does clarify the meaning of the 'slots' size variants (weight, macros, declaredServings) and explains why declaredServings is discouraged. However, it does not explain the 'basis' object's fields like totalRawG, yieldFactor, or totalCookedG, nor does it address allowIncomplete. It adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the low schema 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 states exactly what the tool does with a specific verb ('work out how much to cook') and resource (batch size from an explicit eater list). It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the explicit list and individual slot amounts, and by explicitly contrasting with declared-servings-based sizing. An agent can distinguish it from scaleRecipe or computeBatchMacros without opening the schema.

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 clearly indicates when to use it: when you have an explicit list of who is eating and how much each takes. It also gives a concrete usage rule ('Size slots by weight or by macros where you can') and warns against using declared servings. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it misses the top tier, but the context is clear.

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