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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: results are a 'healthy range, not one number' and derived from four formulas. However, it does not explain the exact output structure (e.g., individual results per formula, min/max), units, or any edge-case behavior. This is moderate disclosure.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key details (formula names, range output). Every phrase earns its place without fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It communicates the essential behavior (range result, multiple formulas) and inputs. It lacks explicit return format or units, but the tool is simple enough that the agent can infer output shape from the description.

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 only restates the parameter names ('height and sex') without adding meaning. It does not explain units, valid ranges, or how the enum for sex is used. The description adds marginal value 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and clearly identifies the resource ('ideal body weight') and inputs ('height and sex'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming four classic formulas (Devine, Robinson, Miller, Hamwi) and the key output behavior ('healthy range, not one number'), setting it apart from other calculators like body_fat_calculator.

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 implies when to use the tool: to estimate ideal body weight from height and sex. It provides context about the multiple formulas and range output, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives among the sibling calculators. This is acceptable for a straightforward calculator.

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