calculate_water_hardness

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'calculate' (implying a read-only computation) but uses a placeholder '{thresholds}' for the return value, leaving behavior ambiguous. No mention of side-effects or data modifications.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a secondary pointer to related tools.

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 tool is simple with two numeric inputs and an output schema, but the description has a placeholder '{thresholds}' and does not explain the output unit (French degrees) or what thresholds represent. This leaves gaps for a low-complexity 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'calcium and magnesium concentrations' linking to parameter names, but does not describe units, constraints, or the meaning of the values beyond the parameter names (which include mg/L).

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 calculates water hardness in French degrees from calcium and magnesium concentrations, which is specific and actionable. It also references list_bundles for related calculators, helping to distinguish it from sibling 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?

The description implies usage context by referencing list_bundles for related 'cuisine' calculators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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