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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with 'Read' behavior. It adds useful context about returned data (TMB, GET) beyond annotations. No contradictions; the description enhances transparency with specific result details.

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 relatively short but includes some redundancy (e.g., Portuguese translation, 'Flattened action: list'). It could be more streamlined without losing clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose, but structural improvement could reduce noise.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should provide more context on parameter usage and output format. It mentions result fields but not how they are returned, and fails to explain the interplay between patient_id/patient_ids and calculo_id/calculo_ids.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions patient_ids and calculo_ids for batch, but does not explain account, calculo_id, or patient_id individually. The relationship between singular and plural parameters is unclear, leaving significant gaps.

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 identifies the tool as reading energy expenditure calculations, with actions list and get, and mentions specific result fields (TMB, GET in Kcal/dia and Kcal/kg). It distinguishes from siblings like webdiet_calculo_energetico_get and webdiet_calculo_energetico_delete via explicit action naming.

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 mentions bulk support and implies list vs get, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks contextual cues for scenarios beyond the basic action distinction.

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