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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the calculation method (mean of Epley and Brzycki) and points to a reference implementation. However, it does not state output units/format (kg?), what happens outside the 2–12 rep range, or error behavior for reps=1.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the method in parentheses and no wasted preamble. The external website reference is mildly promotional but does provide a verification anchor.

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 two-parameter pure calculator with no output schema, the description covers inputs, method, and the two returned quantities. Missing only boundary behavior and explicit output units, which are minor for this complexity.

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 both parameters including the 2–12 rep range, so the description adds little beyond restating 'Gewicht × sauberen Wiederholungen'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (1RM and 5RM equivalent) plus the exact inputs (weight × clean reps) and the method (mean of Epley and Brzycki). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like kraftwerte (strength standards) or kalorienverbrauch.

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?

Usage is only implied by the input description ('aus Gewicht × sauberen Wiederholungen'); there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over kraftwerte or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the context but is not routed.

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