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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema already provide (e.g., no mention of rate limits, auth, or output format). A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

One well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists outputs. No redundant content, though it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points.

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 4-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers what it computes and the optional VAM use case. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it does not explain the meaning of 'nivel' or the zone boundaries.

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 four parameters are documented in the schema. The description reiterates the purpose but adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3.

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 ('Analiza') and resource ('rendimiento en ciclismo'), enumerating exact outputs: W/kg ratio with level, 7 Coggan training zones based on FTP, and optional VAM for timed climbs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like heart-rate zone calculators.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The optional VAM parameters imply a use case (timed climbs), but there is no statement of when-not to use or how to choose among related calculators. Usage must be inferred from parameter names.

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