calculate_daily_vitamins

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returns (% RDA, deficiencies) but omits key traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or limits. The mismatch between described inputs (foods) and actual schema (age, sex) further obscures behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, but it contains inaccurate information about inputs. While concise, the misrepresentation reduces its effectiveness.

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?

Output schema exists but is not described. The description provides some context about return values (RDA, deficiencies), but the input mismatch and lack of explanation for age/sex make it incomplete for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It claims inputs are 'list of foods with quantities', but the schema only includes age and sex, making it misleading. No explanation is given for the actual parameters, severely harming usability.

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 checks daily vitamin and mineral intake against RDA recommendations, which is specific. It also references list_bundles for related calculators, differentiating it somewhat. However, the description mentions inputs (foods with quantities) that do not match the 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 says 'Use for nutrition tracking' and points to list_bundles for related calculators, giving some context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other nutrition-related tools like calculate_daily_protein, nor does it provide exclusions.

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