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 output form (a range in g/day) and the underlying basis (Morton 2018 factors). It does not mention validation behavior, rounding, or how wide the range is, so it is strong but not complete.

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, front-loaded with the output and its unit, followed by the input basis and source. The website reference is compact and useful 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 simple three-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description conveys output type, unit and methodology, which is enough to invoke it confidently. Only minor gaps remain around output shape and edge-case handling.

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 67%: goal has a weak description ('Ziel') but an enum, active explains its default and that it only matters for goal=erhalt, and weight_kg is self-documenting via its unit suffix. The description reinforces the three inputs and their roles, adding marginal value over the schema.

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 precisely what is computed: daily protein requirement as a range (g/day) from weight, goal and activity. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculators like bmi, ffmi or grundumsatz. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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 topic ('daily protein requirement'); there is no statement of when to prefer this over grundumsatz or kaloriendefizit, nor any exclusions. The reference to the website calculator gives context but not routing guidance.

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