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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a scope boundary (no food lookup); it does not disclose that this is a deterministic formula-based computation, the formula/population assumptions, or unit expectations beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope exclusion in second position. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a pure-computation tool, though noting the underlying formula or applicability limits (e.g., adults only) would close the last gap.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented with units and allowed values. The description's enumeration of inputs (age, sex, weight, height, activity, goal) merely restates the schema, and it even says 'sex' where the parameter is named 'gender'. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Estimate') and resource ('daily calorie and macro targets'), plus the exact input dimensions used. The closing clause 'Does not look up foods' explicitly separates it from the food-lookup siblings like get_food_nutrition and search_foods.

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?

Provides a clear negative boundary ('Does not look up foods'), which tells the agent when not to use it, but no positive trigger such as 'use when planning a diet before logging meals' and no sibling alternative named. Clear context, missing explicit when-to-use.

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