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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add that results are MET-based estimates (implying approximation, not precise measurement), but it says nothing about output units, rounding, or the assumptions behind the estimate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and method, with zero filler. The bundle cross-reference is a single trailing clause rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety and determinism for this pure-computation tool. The only mild gap is the absence of stated output units (kcal) and estimation caveats, which a caller might want before relying on the number.

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% and each parameter carries its own description, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no notes on weight units edge cases, duration interpretation, or activity enum semantics), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Estimate calories burned during physical activity') plus the underlying method (MET values), which clearly separates it from adjacent health calculators like calculate_dog_walking_calories or calculate_tdee. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the activity scope rather than stated.

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 only routing hint is 'See list_bundles for related sante calculators,' which points at a discovery tool rather than saying when to pick this calculator over calculate_tdee, calculate_bmr, or calculate_dog_walking_calories. No when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite conditions are given; usage is only implied by the tool name.

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