math_bmi_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists features but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond computation. For a simple calculator, the behavior is implicit, but it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or idempotency.

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 two sentences, front-loads key features, and directs to describe_tool for more details. Every sentence is useful and there is no wasted text.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides an overview of functionality but lacks details on the operation parameter and return format. The direction to describe_tool helps, but the description itself is not fully complete.

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 description does not explain the 'operation' parameter explicitly, though it hints at possible operations (WHO categories, healthy weight range, etc.). With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates by mentioning unit systems, but leaves ambiguity about the operation field.

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 is a BMI calculator for metric or imperial inputs with WHO categories and additional features. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like math_unit_converter and other calculators by specifying BMI-specific functionality.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it is the only BMI calculator among siblings. It mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, which implies some context, but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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