tdee_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool computes BMR internally and multiplies by an activity multiplier, and that it returns weight loss/gain targets. But it omits critical behaviors: which BMR equation is used, what the default activity multiplier is when the optional activityLevel parameter is omitted, and what the 'weight loss/gain targets' concretely are (caloric deficit/surplus values, in what units). This under-disclosure matters because the schema marks activityLevel as optional.

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 sentences and 19 words with the formula front-loaded before the output statement. There is no filler or schema repetition. The slight vagueness of 'weight loss/gain targets' is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one, so the structure itself earns a high score.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (2 enums), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description is only two sentences. It never explains the return value format or units (essential for a nutrition tool), the default for the optional activityLevel, or the relationship to the overlapping daily_calorie_calculator sibling. For this complexity level, the description is substantially incomplete.

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. It does add a conceptual model: the formula implies weightKg, heightCm, age, and sex feed the BMR calculation, and 'activity multiplier' maps to the activityLevel parameter. This gives real semantic meaning that the bare schema lacks. However, it does not explain what the activityLevel enum values mean, units expectations, or the behavior when activityLevel is omitted, so it only partially compensates for the 0% coverage.

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 is specific: it names the resource (TDEE), states the governing formula ('BMR × activity multiplier'), and names the output (weight loss/gain targets). This distinguishes it from bmr_calculator, since BMR alone has no activity multiplier. However, it does not differentiate itself from daily_calorie_calculator, a sibling that likely computes the same thing, so it misses the explicit sibling differentiation needed for a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With daily_calorie_calculator, bmr_calculator, and macro_calculator all present, an agent has no signal about which tool answers a user's calorie-needs question. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so the description provides essentially no routing help.

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