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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the unit conventions (5RM in kg, pull-ups in reps) and anchors behavior to a known public calculator, which helps predict results, but it never says what happens when optional lifts are omitted or how the 'Gesamtbewertung' is derived from partial input.

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 that front-load the output scope and end with the helpful reference implementation. There is mild redundancy with the property descriptions, but no 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?

With eight parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the return value than 'plus Gesamtbewertung' — e.g. whether each lift gets its own Anfänger/Fortgeschritten/Elite classification and how missing lifts affect the total. The core intent is clear, but an agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape.

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 88%, so almost every parameter is already documented with unit and rep scheme. The only added meaning is that results are computed relative to bodyweight, clarifying bodyweight_kg's role as the denominator; the rest of the sentence simply re-lists parameters the schema already describes.

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 the concrete resource (strength standards relative to bodyweight for squat, bench, deadlift, row, overhead press and pull-ups) plus an overall rating, and even cites the reference calculator. That is far more specific than a sibling like 'bmi' or 'einrm', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with einrm (1RM) or the other body-metric 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?

Nothing states when to call this instead of einrm or the other fitness siblings, nor any preconditions such as which lifts must be supplied. The reader can infer that you pass whatever 5RM values you have and get a rating, but that inference is left entirely to the schema.

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