daily_calorie_calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the goal adjustment values (−500 kcal for loss, +300 for gain), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention the activityLevel parameter's role, how BMR is calculated (e.g., Mifflin-St Jeor), or any assumptions/limitations. The description adds some behavioral detail but leaves significant gaps.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key adjustment values. It's concise and readable. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the formula from the adjustments), but it earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the activityLevel parameter, which is optional but critical for the calculation. It also doesn't describe the output format (e.g., a number in kcal/day) or any edge cases. An agent would need to guess at the activityLevel values and the exact BMR formula. The description is adequate for a high-level understanding but not for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions weight, height, age, sex, and goal implicitly through the formula, but it doesn't explain the activityLevel parameter at all, which is the only non-required parameter and has no enum. It also doesn't specify units for weightKg/heightCm or clarify the sex enum values. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 the tool's purpose: calculating target daily calories for maintain/lose/gain goals. It names the specific resource (daily calorie target) and the method (BMR + activity + goal adjustment), which distinguishes it from siblings like bmr_calculator and tdee_calculator. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating itself.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the user wants a daily calorie target for a specific goal. It also implies that BMR and TDEE are components, suggesting those siblings are for intermediate values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like tdee_calculator for maintenance-only estimates. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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