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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that targets are 'computed from body stats, activity, and goal,' implying a read-only calculation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, data freshness, or dependencies on user stats.

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 is front-loaded with the key output ('daily calorie + macro targets') and provides the computation source. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return value and its derivation. It could mention the specific macro breakdown (e.g., protein, carbs, fat) but 'macro targets' is reasonably complete for typical use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the computed targets represent, which is meaningful even though there is no schema to document.

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 provides daily calorie and macro targets, with a specific verb 'Get' in the title and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like meal_plan by focusing on numeric targets rather than a meal plan.

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 usage when the athlete's nutrition targets are needed, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like meal_plan. There are no explicit when-not conditions or alternative tool references, making the guidance purely implied.

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