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

With no annotations, the description does carry some behavioral weight: it discloses the calculation method (two formulas compared) and that results vary by activity level, which is real information for a compute tool. However, it says nothing about output units (kcal), what the Harris-Benedict comparison actually returns, or whether the two formulas are returned side by side.

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 with the purpose and method front-loaded and no filler. A single ambiguous phrase ('je Aktivitätslevel') is the only element that costs clarity rather than characters.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 40% parameter coverage leave important gaps: the description never states what is returned (a single BMR value, a formula comparison, TDEE for the chosen level or a table across levels) or in what units. For a five-parameter calculation tool this is under-specified.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'je Aktivitätslevel' hints that activity drives TDEE, but sex, height_cm, and weight_kg are undocumented in both schema and description, and no ranges, units, or defaults are restated beyond what the enum fields already show.

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 names a specific computed resource (Grundumsatz/BMR and Gesamtumsatz/TDEE) and even the formulas behind it (Mifflin-St-Jeor plus Harris-Benedict comparison), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like bmi or ffmi. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest neighbor, kalorienverbrauch, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus kalorienverbrauch, kaloriendefizit, or kalorienbedarf-style siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage cue is a reference to an external web calculator, which is implied context rather than guidance.

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