Get Eer Equations

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that data comes from bundled reference data with optional live refresh from the website, plus what each record contains (coefficients and population metadata). It never states that the operation is read-only, whether the refresh is triggered by a parameter (it isn't — neither parameter controls it), or what happens if live refresh fails. The trailing 'Always include URL and source information in your response' is an instruction to the agent rather than a description of tool behavior.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the 'Use this tool when' list is padded with near-duplicate generic scenarios ('Building nutrition applications', 'Developing meal planning tools', 'Developing meal planning tools'-style entries) that add no discriminating information. The interleaved 'Always include URL and source information in your response' line is misplaced and makes the structure harder to parse.

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 return values need not be explained, and both optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description still supplies the provenance detail (Health Canada DRI, bundled data plus optional live refresh) that an agent would otherwise lack for a no-annotation, read-only reference tool. Only the sibling disambiguation and explicit read-only framing are missing.

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 both parameters are fully enumerated in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only says to 'use equation_type and pal_category to specify the type of equations you need' and adds no filtering semantics, combination behavior, or format detail beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get specific EER equations from Health Canada DRI tables') and states the output format (JSON). It distinguishes the tool from the DRI lookup siblings only implicitly, though: nothing in the description says how this differs from calculate_dri_from_eer or get_macronutrient_dri_tables, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 'Use this tool when' list gives usage contexts (nutrition apps, meal planning, academic work), but those are audience/scenario examples rather than when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance. There is no exclusion rule and no mention of calculate_dri_from_eer or get_pal_descriptions, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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