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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the calculation method and the shape of the answer (a range plus a BMI-22 single figure), which is genuinely useful. What it omits is the result unit, presumably kg, and whether the range is inclusive, both gaps that matter for a numeric calculator.

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?

It front-loads the definition and the method, and stays short. The closing pair 'There is no one ideal weight; this is the healthy range' plus 'General information.' partly repeats the opening range statement and could be cut to a single disclaimer.

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?

For a one-parameter, annotation-free calculator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, formula and return shape. Completeness would be better if it stated the output unit and confirmed the tool is a pure, side-effect-free read.

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 100% and the single parameter height_cm already documents its cm unit and its 120-230 bound. The description adds nothing about the parameter, such as what happens outside that range, so the schema does all the work and 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?

The description names the exact resource (a healthy-weight range for a given height) and pins down the derivation, the BMI 18.5-24.9 band with a BMI-22 midpoint. It implicitly separates itself from bmi_check by being the weight-side inverse calculation, but it never states that contrast explicitly and uses a noun phrase rather than a verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it applies to height-to-weight-range questions, and the phrase 'General information' gives loose context. There is no when-to-use rule, no explicit alternative to route to (e.g. bmi_check for the reverse direction), and no exclusion for clinical decision-making.

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