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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the return contains calories for both dog and human, which is helpful but shallow; nothing about assumptions (e.g., estimation model, whether the walk is flat) is disclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before inputs and outputs. The trailing 'See list_bundles for related animaux calculators' is mild navigation noise inside a calculation tool rather than a defect of length.

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 return format need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The gaps that remain are input-side: a required parameter (walker_weight_kg) is unmentioned, no units are stated, and the enum semantics are left entirely to the schema, leaving the description only marginally more informative than the structured fields.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, but it names only three of the four required parameters ('dog weight, walk duration, pace') and never mentions walker_weight_kg, which is required and central to the human calorie output. It also omits units (kg/min, implied by schema names) and gives no meaning for the pace enum values slow/moderate/brisk.

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 and resource: computing calories burned by dog and human during a walk, which is clearly distinct from the generic calculate_calories_burned sibling. It frames the intent ('Use for pet weight management') but never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is by resource name rather than explicit routing.

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?

'Use for pet weight management' is a light when-to-use signal, and the 'animaux' bundle pointer hints at a topic area. However, there are no exclusions and no comparison against the many other calorie/pet siblings (calculate_calories_burned, calculate_tdee, calculate_pet_food_portion), so the agent still has to infer the boundary.

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