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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral content is the return field list, which duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing anything new such as rounding, formula source, or clamping behavior.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The explicit return-field enumeration is slightly wasteful given an output schema exists, but it costs little and does not obscure the main statement.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, closed-form calculator with full schema coverage, complete annotations and a declared output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. Missing details (e.g., which population the rates target, whether weight is lean or total mass) are minor for a deterministic formula tool.

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 the goal enum is enumerated in the schema, so both parameters are already documented. The phrase 'based on weight and fitness goal' restates the schema without adding units nuance, allowed ranges, or mapping of goal values to protein rates. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Calculate recommended daily protein intake') plus the two inputs that drive the result, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as calculate_tdee, calculate_daily_vitamins or calculate_recipe_nutrition; the 'sante' bundle pointer is navigational, not disambiguating.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only routing hint ('See list_bundles for related sante calculators') points at a browsing tool, not at a competing calculator, so the agent must infer applicability on its own.

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