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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the coefficient source of truth ('the coefficients the OpenPowerlifting rankings use') and the fact that it returns three distinct scores, which is important for trusting the numbers. It does not discuss numerical edge cases, but the annotated contract is well supplemented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the operation, the input concept, and the three outputs. Every clause earns its place; nothing is restated from the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the three returned metrics, and all six parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance on interpreting or comparing the three scores, which an agent producing an answer might want.

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 description coverage is 100%, including enum explanations for sex, unit, event, and equipment, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'or a bench press' (event=bench) and 'the original Wilks' without adding format, range, or unit-switching detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: score a powerlifting total (or bench press) against bodyweight. It also names the exact formulas (DOTS, IPF GL, original Wilks), which makes it functionally distinguishable from estimation siblings like one_rep_max. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The parenthetical 'or a bench press' hints at the event choice, but the agent must infer that this tool is for scoring an already-completed total rather than estimating or planning one. Prerequisites (needing a known total, bodyweight, and sex) are left implicit.

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