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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the creation behavior. The description adds value by noting that all measurement fields default to null, providing clarity on initialization. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 extremely concise, using three short sentences to convey purpose, required parameters, type options, and bulk support. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, constraints, and bulk capability. However, it lacks explanation of optional parameters (date, description, account) and does not describe the return value, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden. It explains the required parameters (patient_id, weight, height) with units and ranges, and the type parameter with values. However, it does not cover optional parameters like date, description, and account, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new anthropometric evaluation in Dietbox', clearly identifying the verb (create) and resource (anthropometric evaluation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dietbox_antropometria_get, dietbox_antropometria_list, and dietbox_antropometria_delete.

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 specifies required parameters (patient_id, weight, height) with formats and ranges, and explains the 'type' field (1=physical evaluation, 4=bioimpedance). It also mentions bulk support via patient_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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