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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'estimates' and mentions return thresholds, indicating a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any potential behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or the nature of 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then linking to related tools. Every sentence serves a clear function with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (implied by 'Returns: {thresholds}'), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could be more complete by explaining what the thresholds represent or the BMI formula. It is minimally complete for a simple calculator with good sibling context.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of weight_kg or body_length_cm beyond their names. It does not add value such as unit clarifications or usage tips, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it estimates a body condition score proxy (BMI) for dogs and cats, using a specific verb 'Estimate' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling pet calculators by referencing 'list_bundles' for related 'animaux' tools, making its unique purpose apparent.

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 implies usage for estimating pet BMI but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It references 'list_bundles' for related calculators, which hints at alternatives, but does not directly compare with siblings like calculate_body_fat or calculate_bmi.

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