calculate_water_hardness

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

No annotations provided; description only states it calculates and returns thresholds. It does not disclose if there are side effects, limitations, or any behavioral traits beyond the calculation. As a calculator, it's likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 short and to the point, with two sentences covering purpose and a related tools reference. It is efficient for an agent to parse.

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 existence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks explanation of what French degrees mean and the threshold output structure, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only names the parameters without adding meaning. For instance, it doesn't explain concentration units (mg/L) or what ranges are typical. The low coverage requires compensation, which is missing.

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?

Clearly states it calculates water hardness in French degrees from calcium and magnesium. The name and description are specific. However, it lacks a brief definition of French degrees, which could improve understanding.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other calculators. The mention of list_bundles for 'cuisine' calculators provides a weak contextual hint but no explicit when/when-not criteria.

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