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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), which this description correctly does not contradict. However, with no output schema present, the description never says what is actually returned (step count, walk duration, pace/stride assumptions), leaving the result shape entirely undisclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and immediately followed by the exclusions; no filler. The long embedded example list makes the first sentence slightly run-on but every clause carries information.

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 five-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation intent and domain limits well. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against steps_to_calories and any indication of what the tool returns.

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 description coverage is 100% with enums and ranges documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the food-vs-kcal choice and hints at combining weight with kcal ("300 calories 75 kg"), but adds no syntax or unit guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific computation (steps or walking time to burn a given food or calorie amount) and illustrates it with realistic user phrasings. It never names its sibling steps_to_calories or explains that this tool is the reverse direction, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

It gives explicit positive triggers with concrete example queries ("steps to burn a samosa", "how much walking to burn 1 roti") and explicit exclusions (running, gym workouts, children, eating-disorder questions, medical exercise plans). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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