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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that it computes two distinct outputs (resting energy vs daily calories), but does not explain that daily calories depend on the activity multiplier. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it omits a lot that would have been worth the words: the method names and the bodyFat requirement for katch.

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 10-parameter tool with complex oneOf/anyOf branch constraints and 60% schema coverage, the description is thin. It never mentions the imperial-vs-metric branching, the method enum, or the activity-level multiplier that drives daily calories. Output schema exists, so return values are exempt, but the input constraints are inadequately conveyed.

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 60%, so the schema already documents some parameters (height, feet, inches, weight, bodyFat, age). The description names formula, activity level and measurements as inputs, which is useful framing, but it does not explain the method enum (mifflin/harris/katch, where katch requires bodyFat) or clarify units handling. It neither compensates fully for the coverage gap nor adds nothing.

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 a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (resting energy and daily calories), and names the inputs it draws from. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like body_fat_calculator or bmi_calculator, though the 'resting energy and daily calories' output focus is fairly distinctive.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The 'adult measurements' constraint is the only hint at applicability, and the tool does not route agents to bmi_calculator or body_fat_calculator when those are what the user needs.

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