calculate_recipe_nutrition

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutation, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description purely describes computation without behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with purpose. However, the 'Inputs:' line is not fully accurate, and the structure could be more concise.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description includes a non-existent parameter ('servings count') and lacks completeness regarding required inputs.

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 mentions 'servings count' as an input, but the schema has no such parameter. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds misleading information beyond the schema.

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 total calories, protein, carbs, fat for a recipe and per serving. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'cuisine calculators' via list_bundles, but does not explicitly differentiate from other calculate 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?

It provides usage context ('Use for meal planning or nutrition labels') and references list_bundles for related calculators, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives.

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