ideal_weight_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It names the formulas and inputs but does not explain output units, which formula is applied under what conditions, how sex affects results, or any limitations. The mention of Robinson and Broca formulas adds some method context, but behavior remains largely opaque.

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 compact sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately adds the differentiating formula names, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple calculator, the description captures the core purpose and method, but it lacks return format/units and does not address the mismatch between the schema's optional sex and the description's implication that sex is required. Since there is no output schema, a bit more clarity about expected results would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only restates 'height and sex' without adding meaning: it does not define units, clarify that sex is optional per the schema, or explain how the formulas use these parameters. The parameter names in the schema already convey at least as much.

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 identifies the tool as an ideal body weight calculator and names the specific formulas (Robinson and Broca), which distinguishes it from sibling calculators. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'calculates', but the noun phrase 'Ideal body weight via...' is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BMI or BMR calculators. The only usage signal is implicit: if you need ideal body weight, use this calculator. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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