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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does add the underlying formula (BMI 18.5-24.9), which is useful, but it also inaccurately summarizes the inputs as 'height cm' when sex and frame are required, understating what drives the result.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence and kept to four short, punchy clauses. The trailing 'See list_bundles for related sante calculators' is mildly off-topic filler, and the input summary is truncated, but overall there is little waste.

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 describing the returned min/max in kg and lb is redundant but harmless. What is missing is the routing context that matters most for this tool: how it differs from calculate_ideal_weight and calculate_bmi. For a simple read-only calculator that is the main remaining gap.

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 two parameters carry enums ('male'/'female', 'small'/'medium'/'large'), so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds nothing on sex or frame and its 'Inputs: height cm' line is actually incomplete, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 ('Compute healthy weight range') and even discloses the method (BMI 18.5-24.9), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling calculate_ideal_weight or from calculate_bmi sitting right next to it in the list, so an agent still has to guess which of the three to pick.

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 nutrition planning' is a domain hint, not usable routing guidance: it gives no when-to-use condition, no when-not, and no alternative. With calculate_ideal_weight and calculate_bmi as siblings, the absence of any disambiguation is a genuine selection risk.

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