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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key outputs (daily calorie deficit, weekly loss rate, safety classification) and implies a calculation model. It does not explain the underlying formula or safety thresholds, but this is acceptable for a calculator with no side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the tool's purpose and outcomes without waste. It earns its place by covering all necessary key points efficiently.

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 3-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns: daily deficit, weekly loss, and safety status. It lacks explicit units or safety criteria, but the context is clear enough for basic use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains goalKg and days via 'goal weight' and 'target date', and implicitly maps currentKg as the starting point. However, currentKg is not explicitly described, and units/interpretations are mostly left to the parameter names and schema bounds.

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's function: setting a goal weight and target date to compute daily calorie deficit, weekly loss rate, and safety. It uses a specific verb phrase and distinguishes itself from sibling calculators like calories_burned_calculator or macro_calculator by focusing on goal-based deficit planning.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (when you have a goal weight and a target date). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but it provides enough context for an agent to select this over other calculators without confusion.

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