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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses meaningful calculation behavior: a calorie floor, a cap on the rate of loss, adult-only applicability, and parity with the MALAI app's calculator. It does not provide the numeric safety thresholds or formula, but the schema also explains that loss is capped and the applied rate is returned.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose, outputs, principal inputs, and safety behavior. The remaining sentences efficiently add app parity, concrete use cases, an eligibility restriction, and sibling routing without digression.

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 nine-parameter calculator, the definition combines clear scope, example requests, safety constraints, and an explicit alternative with a fully described input schema and an output schema. Together with the safety annotations, this gives an agent enough context to select and invoke it correctly without requiring formula or return-value details in 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 coverage is 100% and already documents units, defaults, enum meanings, height conversion, and rate capping in detail. The description usefully summarizes the major inputs and illustrates a weekly-loss request, but adds little parameter-level information beyond that comprehensive 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 and resource: estimating daily calories, protein, carbs, fat, and fiber from stated physiological and goal inputs. It also distinguishes calculated targets from a signed-in user's saved targets in malai_get_nutrition_targets.

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?

Concrete example requests show when to use it, while the adults-only restriction establishes eligibility. The explicit exclusion for saved targets, including the correct sibling tool, provides clear when-not and alternative guidance.

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