calculate_food_cost_per_serving

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the return values (cost per serving and total), but does not elaborate on any edge cases, assumptions, or constraints. The behavioral transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 three sentences: purpose, use cases, inputs/outputs, and sibling tool reference. It is front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and no redundant information.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, inputs, and outputs. However, it could mention any constraints like all ingredient quantities must be in same unit or that price is per unit. Still, it is reasonably 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 0%, so the description should compensate. It lists inputs as 'ingredients with cost and quantity used, servings' but doesn't detail individual fields like price, total_quantity, used_quantity. While the schema names are self-explanatory, the description adds little beyond enumeration.

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 it computes food cost per serving from ingredient costs, specifying use cases for restaurants and meal-prep services. It also mentions related 'cuisine' calculators via list_bundles, helping distinguish from sibling 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?

Provides explicit use cases ('Use for restaurants, meal-prep services') and directs to list_bundles for related calculators, offering guidance on alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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