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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns TMB and GET in specific units, and supports batch execution via patient_ids and calculo_ids. No contradictions with 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?

Description is relatively short but contains redundant notes (e.g., '[Flattened action: get]') and an unnecessary action list that misaligns with the tool name. Could be more succinct and focused on the get action.

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?

Output fields are described, but missing details like required parameter combinations, error cases, or response format. With no output schema, the description should provide more context. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions patient_ids and calculo_ids for batch, but does not clarify account, calculo_id, or patient_id individually, nor their combinations. Incomplete parameter documentation.

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 states the tool reads energy expenditure calculations (Cálculo Energético) and specifies it returns TMB and GET. However, it mentions both 'list' and 'get' actions, which is confusing because a separate sibling tool exists for listing. The flattening note adds ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'webdiet_calculo_energetico_list' or other alternatives. The description implies it can both list and get, but the sibling list tool suggests this should only be for getting by ID. Lack of clear usage boundaries.

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