calculate_recipe_nutrition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions outputs but does not address whether data is persisted, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. Additionally, it refers to a 'servings count' input that is not present in the schema, which is misleading.

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 and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be better structured by separating input/output details or using bullet points.

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 lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema (not detailed in context), the description should provide more behavioral and parameter context. It fails to explain how the tool handles missing fields or servings count, and does not leverage the output schema richness.

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% (description does not explain the individual fields within the ingredients array). The description vaguely mentions 'list of ingredients with grams, servings count' but misses the detailed per-100g nutritional fields. The reference to a non-existent 'servings count' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes calorie, protein, carb, and fat totals per recipe and per serving, and mentions use cases (meal planning, nutrition labels). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from other nutrition-related siblings like calculate_daily_protein or calculate_bmr.

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 basic usage context ('Use for meal planning or nutrition labels') and hints at alternatives via 'See list_bundles for related cuisine calculators', but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from other calculation tools.

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