Rescale an ingredient list

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description goes far beyond them: it explains rounding to readable values, the half/whole rounding rule based on countable items, treatment of approximate measures, parsing of articles as one unit, and that unquantified lines are returned untouched and flagged. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction to the 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?

The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose and the no-network constraint. The following sentences pack dense but relevant detail: parameter alternatives, French-list applicability, rounding rules with concrete examples, edge-case handling, and a closing usage preference. Every clause earns its place; there is no 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 complexity, the description covers domain scope, parameter alternatives, rounding rules, approximate measures, and unquantified lines. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The only notable omission is the fallback or error behavior when no scale parameter is provided, since the schema does not enforce one of factor/from_servings/to_servings.

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 schema already describes every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between factor and from_servings/to_servings, stating that the factor is computed from the serving pair. It also gives concrete ingredient-line examples. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what happens if neither factor nor the from/to pair is supplied, though the schema only requires ingredients.

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 and resource: 'Rescale a list of ingredient lines to a different number of servings,' and adds the key constraint 'without contacting any website.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling recipe browsing and search tools, which focus on finding or retrieving recipes rather than transforming ingredient lines.

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?

Gives clear context: it works on any French ingredient list, including pasted recipes, and explicitly says 'Prefer this over doing the arithmetic yourself.' It does not name a competing sibling tool or state explicit exclusions, but no sibling targets the same operation, so the guidance is adequate.

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