calculate_hydration

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

The description states the output includes L/day and electrolyte recommendation, which provides basic behavioral info. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 fairly concise with four sentences covering purpose, audience, inputs, and output/reference. However, the input list inaccuracies reduce its effectiveness. It could be more efficient without misleading details.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits details about the climate enum values, default for activity_minutes, and calculation assumptions. The input inaccuracies further detract from completeness for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

The description inaccurately describes inputs (activity hours vs minutes, temperature vs climate enum). Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the misleading text in the description may confuse an agent. It adds confusion rather than clarification.

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 computes fluid intake and targets athletes and outdoor workers. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculators by focusing on hydration. However, the description mentions temperature while the schema uses a climate enum, causing slight inconsistency.

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?

It suggests use for athletes and outdoor workers and references list_bundles for related calculators. This provides some context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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