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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful methodology context (results derive from Compendium MET values), but says nothing about output shape, precision, or how unit selection interacts with the kg/lb fields.

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 carries the resource, method and inputs, with no redundancy. The trailing calcbright.com URL is extraneous for an agent invoking the tool but is not disruptive.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, annotation-covered calculator with a fully documented schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly, and 'calories burned' adequately signals the return value despite no output schema. Minor gap: no mention of whether the result is a single kcal total or a per-activity breakdown.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with types, defaults, ranges and enum members. The description restates body weight and time spent but adds no syntax or interaction guidance (e.g. that units governs whether kg or lb is honored). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the specific resource (calories burned across walking, running, cycling, swimming, lifting and 20+ activities) and the computation basis (Compendium MET values, body weight, time). An agent can tell it apart from generic siblings like tdee_calculator or bmr_calculator by the activity-based framing. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it displaces.

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 or when-not guidance, and no routing against the crowded fitness cluster (tdee_calculator, calorie_deficit_calculator, bmr_calculator, heart_rate_zone_calculator, pace_calculator). The agent must infer the use case purely from the name and description.

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