Rescale a list of ingredients

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich behavioral detail beyond that: it explains the three possible per-line outcomes ('scaled', 'rounded', 'unscaled'), states that no unit conversion occurs, preserves approximate measures like 'pizca', and marks equipment lines as 'is_equipment'. This gives the agent a clear mental model of what the tool actually does at the line level.

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 compact and information-dense. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second explains the parameter grouping, and subsequent sentences explain output behavior and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of a complete input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema (per context signals), the description covers all essential non-schema semantics: parameter combos, per-line statuses, equipment handling, unit behavior, and offline execution. Nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already documents each parameter with a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds a critical constraint not fully explicit in the schema: the mutual exclusivity/grouping of 'factor' versus 'from_servings' and 'to_servings' together. This is exactly the kind of semantic that helps an agent build a valid request.

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 a specific operation: 'Rescale a list of Spanish ingredient lines, offline.' It names the resource (ingredient lines) and the verb (rescale), and the sibling tools are all about retrieving or browsing recipes, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 gives direct usage instructions: 'Give either factor, or from_servings and to_servings together.' This tells the agent how to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it versus siblings, but sibling names make it obvious that this is the only rescaling option, so the guidance is sufficient.

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