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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only that this is a pure deterministic derivation from BMR and activity level, which is modest added value rather than rich behavioral context.

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, computationally relevant information front-loaded, zero padding. The trailing bundle cross-reference is mildly promotional but brief.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with annotations covering safety and a 100%-documented schema, the agent has almost everything needed. The one substantive gap is whether a BMR value should be sourced from calculate_bmr and what unit convention applies to the returned kcal.

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%: bmr (kcal) and activity_level (5-value enum) are both documented in the schema, including units and allowed values. The description merely names the same two inputs and adds no syntax, defaults, or interpretation guidance, so the baseline 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 (calculate TDEE) plus the exact computational inputs (BMR + activity level), which lets an agent distinguish it from calculate_bmr and calculate_calories_burned. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as related/dependent, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that BMR must come from calculate_bmr first), and no exclusions. The only routing hint is 'See list_bundles for related sante calculators', which is a discovery pointer rather than usage guidance.

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