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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully names the formula and the goal-based output, but it does not explain how activity multipliers or goal adjustments are applied, nor the exact output format. This leaves some behavior implicit.

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 concise and front-loaded, adding one useful sentence after restating the title. There is slight redundancy with the title, but no unnecessary fluff or padding.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify output type, units, and how inputs like activity and goal affect results. It only provides high-level intent, leaving important operational details undocumented.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. It only alludes to the formula and goals, so the agent must infer meaning from property names and enum values. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states clearly that the tool calculates Total Daily Energy Expenditure using the Mifflin-St Jeor formula and provides daily calorie needs for fat loss, maintenance, or muscle gain. This specific verb-plus-resource framing distinguishes it from sibling calculators like macro_calculator or calories_burned_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 implies when to use the tool: to find TDEE and daily calorie targets. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as using calorie_deficit_calculator for deficit details or macro_calculator for macronutrient breakdown, so the usage context is present but not fully elaborated.

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