calculate_daily_vitamins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states inputs that are not in the schema (food list) and does not explain how the tool computes RDA with only age and sex. This omission and contradiction make the behavior unclear.

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 but contains a factual error by describing inputs that do not match the schema. Brevity is not helpful if it misleads.

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 complexity of nutrition tracking and no output schema details, the description fails to explain how age and sex alone produce RDA results. It is incomplete and contradictory.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description mentions 'Inputs: list of foods with quantities' but the actual parameters are age and sex, which are not described. This misleads about parameter semantics.

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 claims to 'Check daily vitamin and mineral intake against RDA recommendations' and mentions inputs as 'list of foods with quantities', but the actual input schema only includes age and sex, not a food list. This mismatch undermines clarity and makes the purpose confusing.

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 for nutrition tracking and points to list_bundles for related 'cuisine' calculators. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_daily_protein, and does not specify exclusions.

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