walk_allowance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the underlying model: it never mentions whether user weight/step length are assumed, whether the computation is side-effect-free, or what the result contains. For a calculator tool this is a meaningful gap, since the agent cannot tell what inputs the result actually depends on.

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 tight sentences: the first states the computation and its output, the second gives the invocation condition. Nothing is wasted and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 computed tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it produces ('available allowance for this meal'). The remaining gap is that the derivation assumptions (calorie-per-step or user profile) are never hinted at, but the tool's surface is small enough that this is minor.

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% (distance_m with '步行距离（米）'), so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description only restates 'given walking distance' without adding units, constraints, or sign/range guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific transformation: given walking distance, compute the calorie allowance available for the next meal. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like nearby_food or explain_concept, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with what_can_i_eat, which sounds closely related.

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?

It names concrete trigger phrases ('how much can I eat after walking', 'how much allowance is left'), giving the agent a usable activation condition. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit routing away from the sibling tool what_can_i_eat, so the boundary remains inferential.

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