calculate_sunscreen_reapply

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only (likely safe), require permissions, or handle out-of-range inputs. The absence of such information justifies a score of 2.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence about list_bundles is tangential but not excessive. Minor improvement could be made by removing the extra parameter mentions. Score 4.

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?

The description mentions 'Returns next reapply time,' covering the output. However, it lacks details on how activity/water exposure (mentioned but not in schema) affect the calculation, and no information about the output format. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 reflects moderate completeness.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions (100% coverage) for all three parameters: spf, skin_type, uv_index. The description adds no new semantic value to these parameters but introduces misleading extra inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already defines them well.

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 states 'Compute when to reapply sunscreen' and mentions relevant factors. However, it lists 'activity (sweat/swim)' and 'water exposure' as inputs, which are not present in the actual input schema (spf, skin_type, uv_index). This inconsistency reduces clarity, making it a 3.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'Use for sun safety' and references list_bundles for related calculators. It does not specify when to use this tool versus other sunscreen or health calculators, nor does it mention when not to use it. A score of 2 reflects the lack of explicit usage context.

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