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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the calculation supports three paces and a deadline check, but it does not state that this is a pure read-only calculator, what the return values look like (e.g., duration per tempo), or any assumptions such as goal weight needing to be below current weight.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core calculation is stated first, followed by the optional deadline check and a reference URL. It is efficient, though the external website reference adds little value for an agent and could be omitted without loss.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It implies that the tool returns duration for three paces, but it does not explicitly describe the output structure or the deadline-check behavior in enough detail for an agent to fully understand the return values.

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 the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds context about the three weight-loss tempos and the optional deadline check, but it does not add syntax, units, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states that the tool computes the duration until goal weight at three tempos (0.5 / 1 / 1.5 % body weight per week), optionally with a deadline check. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculators by focusing specifically on weight-loss duration rather than BMI, calorie deficit, or ideal weight, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 usage by mentioning an optional deadline check, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like kaloriendefizit or idealgewicht. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing.

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