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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'computes' and 'returns calories burned by both', indicating a read-only computation. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 two sentences plus a cross-reference, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys inputs and outputs.

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 (though not shown), so return value explanation is not needed. The tool is simple, but the description misses one required parameter and does not mention that all inputs are required, which is a gap given the context of a large sibling set.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'dog weight, walk duration, pace' but omits the required parameter 'walker_weight_kg', and does not clarify the 'pace' enum values or units for weights/duration. This incomplete mapping reduces clarity.

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 verb 'Compute', the resource 'calories burned by dog and human during a walk', and distinguishes it from sibling calculators (e.g., calculate_dog_food) by specifying the exact calculation and use case 'pet weight management'.

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 provides context ('Use for pet weight management') and hints at alternatives via 'See list_bundles for related 'animaux' calculators', but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or prerequisites.

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