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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing exactly what the tool returns (daily carb target, protocol length, total carbs, pre-race meal size), which is not included in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes output data. Every word contributes to the overall understanding; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given that the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema is absent, the description names the return values sufficiently. It does not explain hasGIIssues explicitly, but that is covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for a read-only calculator, though additional details about result units or edge cases could improve it.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description redundantly mentions some inputs (race type, body weight, finish time, experience) without adding new meaning beyond the schema. It does not cover hasGIIssues or provide units/syntax details, so it adds no semantic 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('pre-race carb loading targets'), along with key inputs (race type, body weight, finish time, experience level) and outputs. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fueling-plan or hydration by focusing specifically on carb loading.

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 implies the use case (pre-race carb loading calculation) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. It offers a clear context but lacks alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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