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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the formula (Epley) and return fields, but lacks details on limitations, edge cases, or behavior beyond the formula (e.g., handling outliers). The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with two sentences: first states purpose, second mentions return value and cross-reference. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description claims a 'full 1RM-to-12RM repetition table' but the return example only lists three fields (input_weight, input_reps, estimated_1rm), suggesting a possible inconsistency. It fails to clarify whether the output truly includes a table structure. Given this gap, completeness is inadequate.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal parameter-level info beyond explaining that inputs represent a 'known lift'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already describes parameters well.

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 the tool generates a 'full 1RM-to-12RM repetition table' using the Epley formula, specifying the verb 'Generate' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'calculate_one_rep_max' by creating a table rather than a single value.

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 implicitly suggests usage by mentioning 'from a known lift' and references 'list_bundles' for related sport calculators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_one_rep_max' or provide exclusions.

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