bmr_calc

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

The description discloses a cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not state whether this is a read-only calculation, what inputs it requires, or what the output looks like. The cost info is minimal and does not compensate for the lack of other behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified; the phrase 'bmr calc' is redundant with the tool name, and the remaining content ('Health & Fitness tool. Costs $0.001 USDC via x402.') provides little substantive information. It is not bloated, but it also does not fully earn its place.

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 the generic schema, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It fails to define BMR, list required inputs (age, sex, weight, height), describe output units, or mention any computation logic. The description is entirely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema only defines a generic 'params' object with the description 'Tool parameters as JSON object', offering no specific parameter names, types, or meanings. The description also provides no parameter information. Despite schema_description_coverage being 100%, it is misleading because the schema itself is a placeholder and does not describe the actual parameters needed for a BMR calculation.

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 says 'bmr calc' and 'Health & Fitness tool', which restates the name and gives a broad category but does not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., calculates Basal Metabolic Rate). It fails to provide a specific verb+resource, making it effectively a tautology with a vague domain label.

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 provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like calculate_bmi, tdee_calc, or body_fat_calc. The only additional context is the cost, which is a payment condition, not a usage scenario. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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