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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the underlying method (WHO-style BMI band 18.5–24.9) and anchors to a public reference calculator, which signals a deterministic read-only computation. It does not state that the output is a lower/upper bound pair or that no persistence occurs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the result unit and the formula band. The website reference earns its place as a spec anchor rather than filler.

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 one-parameter deterministic calculator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing formula detail (the 18.5–24.9 band and kg units), so an agent can predict the return. Only the exact shape of the returned range is left implicit.

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 the single parameter already documents 'Größe in cm', so the description adds only the restatement 'für eine Körpergröße'. 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 computation: a healthy weight range in kg derived from a height via the BMI band 18.5–24.9. That distinguishes it from pure single-value siblings like bmi or ffmi, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implied by the input (a height), but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over bmi or koerperfett_navy, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the choice from the sibling names.

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