calculate_alcohol_units

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states it is a computation tool (no destructive actions), but it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., handling empty arrays, negative values) or clarify that it accepts multiple drinks despite mentioning 'a drink' singularly. The ambiguity between singular and plural is a minor issue, but overall it is adequate for a read-only calculator.

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 two sentences long with an additional reference to related tools. It efficiently conveys the purpose, inputs, outputs, and usage context without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has an output schema (context indicates true) and moderate complexity, the description provides key return values (UK units, grams, standard-drink equivalent) but lacks details on the 'type' parameter and array support. The missing type information hurts completeness for a tool that likely uses type to adjust calculation. It is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'volume mL, ABV %' but omits the 'type' field (beer, wine, spirit, cocktail) which is required in the schema. This omission reduces the value added by the description, as the 'type' parameter is essential for accurate unit calculation. The description partially clarifies units but is incomplete.

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 states the tool computes UK alcohol units and grams of pure alcohol from a drink's volume and ABV. It specifies the resource (alcohol units) and the verb (compute), distinguishing it from other 'calculate_' tools by focusing on alcohol units and mentioning UK-specific measurement.

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 provides context for usage ('Use for health tracking and limit awareness') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_blood_alcohol' or 'calculate_bac_points'. No exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings are given, resulting in only implied usage context.

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