calculate_cooking_conversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Convert' but does not disclose if it is read-only, requires authentication, or other behavioral traits. The mention of 'ingredient (for density)' is misleading as the schema lacks such a parameter, and 'Returns: {original}' is vague.

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 relatively short, but it includes redundant details ('Inputs: ...') and an unnecessary reference to list_bundles. The structure could be more streamlined, and the misleading content detracts from conciseness.

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 medium complexity (multiple units and potential density conversion), the description fails to accurately represent capabilities. It omits important details like the lack of density conversion support and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like convert_cooking.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions, the description adds no value and introduces inaccuracies. It refers to 'value' instead of 'amount' and includes 'ingredient', which is not in the schema, potentially confusing the agent.

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 converts recipe quantities between common units and specifies the use case for international recipe translation. However, it mentions an 'ingredient' parameter for density, which does not exist in the input schema, causing slight confusion.

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 suggests using the tool for international recipe translation and points to list_bundles for related calculators. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_cooking, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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