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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail about return fields (url, measurements) and bulk support, which is valuable context beyond 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 well-structured: summary, action breakdown, URL note, usage guidance, bulk support. It is informative but could be slightly tighter. However, it is not verbose and each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields for both list and get, including the URL. It covers bulk support and mentions necessary IDs. Lacks explicit mention of account parameter, but overall adequate for a read tool.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions patient_ids and antropometria_ids for bulk, but does not describe account, patient_id, or antropometria_id. The purpose implies patient_id, but explicit schema details are missing.

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 it reads anthropometry records and distinguishes between list and get actions. It explicitly says 'Use this to analyze patient body composition evolution over time,' and contrasts with create/save tools, making purpose unmistakable.

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 when-to-use: 'analyze patient body composition evolution over time.' Also gives specific alternatives for writing: 'For creating/saving records, use webdiet_create_antropometria + webdiet_save_antropometria.' This fully clarifies when not to use this tool.

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