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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no destructive side effects. The description adds the strategy-specific computation details but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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?

The description is concise with a single sentence followed by a clear breakdown of strategy ratios. It is front-loaded and efficient, though some might prefer a more structured format.

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 no output schema, the description omits return value details. It covers the strategies but does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., that PRO uses proteinPerKg and fatPerKg). For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, more completeness is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the strategy parameter's enum values but does not describe the other parameters (calories, weightKg, proteinPerKg, fatPerKg) or their usage across strategies. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value.

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 clearly states the tool computes a macro split (protein/carbs/fat in grams) and lists the supported strategies with their ratios. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc_1rm and calc_tdee.

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?

The description provides explicit ratios for each strategy (STANDARD, PRO, KETO), guiding the agent on which parameters to use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context for when not to use it.

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