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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a Widmark-formula *estimate* and names the returned fields, but does not discuss accuracy limits or assumptions of the model, leaving moderate added value.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The only minor redundancy is enumerating return fields that an output schema already provides.

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 annotations covering safety, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. Its one real gap is the absence of disambiguation from siblings like calculate_alcohol_units and calculate_bac_points.

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 100% (drinks, weight_kg, sex enum, hours_drinking are all documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 gives a specific verb (estimate), resource (blood alcohol content), and even the method (Widmark formula), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as calculate_alcohol_units or calculate_bac_points, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing away from near-identical siblings. The only pointer is 'See list_bundles for related "sante" calculators,' which is a discovery aid rather than usage guidance.

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