calculate_baking_altitude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it returns an adjusted recipe but does not disclose if the tool modifies data, what permissions are needed, or other side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation-tool-like description.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose and adjustments, second summarizes inputs/outputs and points to related tools.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and output, but lacks details on return format or processing behavior. Given the output schema exists, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds a high-level summary ('Inputs: altitude m, ingredients') but does not enrich parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool adjusts baking recipes for high altitude, specifying the nature of adjustments (less leavening, more liquid, higher temp). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'mountain cooking' and referencing list_bundles for related calculators, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

Description specifies use case ('mountain cooking') and suggests checking list_bundles for related cuisine calculators, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name specific alternatives.

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