protein_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It provides useful detail by listing the per-goal multipliers (cut: 2g/kg, maintain: 1.6g/kg, bulk: 2g/kg). However, it does not disclose output units, rounding, behavior when goal is omitted, or whether the result is a single number.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The key formula and goal options are packed into one sentence, and the most relevant information 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 simple calculator tool with only two parameters, the description is mostly adequate but has clear gaps: it does not state what happens when the optional 'goal' parameter is omitted, even though the schema marks it optional, and it does not explicitly confirm that the result is in grams. These omissions matter for correct 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 undocumented parameters. It gives meaning to 'goal' by mapping enum values to multipliers, but it does not explicitly explain 'weightKg' beyond the phrase 'body weight', and it relies on the schema for the goal enum. The formula adds some value over the raw 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 description clearly states the resource being computed ('Daily protein needs') and its inputs ('body weight and goal'), which distinguishes it from sibling calculators like BMI, BMR, and TDEE. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' and does not contrast with macro_calculator, but the intent 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus macro_calculator or other nutrition-related calculators. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references, so the agent must infer suitability from the resource name alone.

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