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

Adds value beyond annotations: explains that the tool can list or get records, describes specific measurements returned (weight, height, skinfolds, etc.), includes direct URL field, and mentions batch execution. However, it does not clarify how the tool determines which action to perform based on input parameters, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Relatively concise at around 100 words with clear sections: purpose, actions, included fields, alternatives, bulk support. The 'Flattened action: get' line is slightly out of place and could be removed. Otherwise well-structured.

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?

Covers many details: returned fields for both list and get, bulk capabilities, linking to external system. However, it lacks output schema and does not explain how to differentiate list vs get via parameters, nor does it describe units or interpretation of measurements. Additional context about response format and edge cases would improve completeness.

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 must compensate. It explains that patient_ids and antropometria_ids are for batched execution, and implies that patient id parameters trigger list while antropometria_id triggers get. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter to its role or explain the behavior when multiple parameter types are provided.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read anthropometry records' with specific verb and resource. It lists two actions (list and get) and distinguishes from create/save siblings by explicitly naming webdiet_create_antropometria and webdiet_save_antropometria. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling webdiet_antropometria_list, leaving ambiguity about overlap.

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?

Provides explicit direction for when to use this tool vs create/save tools. Also mentions bulk support with patient_ids and antropometria_ids. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the existing webdiet_antropometria_list sibling, and does not explain under what circumstances to use list vs get actions.

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