calorie_burn

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 mentions the cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, but does not disclose what the tool does, what inputs are required, or what output to expect. This is a significant gap for a health/fitness calculation tool.

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 extremely short, which is not conciseness but under-specification. The text 'calorie burn' largely restates the tool name and provides no substantive details, making the description of little use.

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 health/fitness tool that likely requires multiple inputs and produces a meaningful numeric output, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any mention of inputs, outputs, or how it relates to sibling tools, and there is no output schema to fill the gaps.

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 has a generic 'params' object with a description of 'Tool parameters as JSON object'. The description does not compensate by explaining the actual parameters (e.g., weight, duration, activity) or their format. This adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the 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 identifies the tool as 'calorie burn — Health & Fitness tool' but lacks a verb or specific action. It does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., calculates, estimates) and fails to distinguish it from sibling health tools like bmr_calc or tdee_calc.

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 or when to choose alternatives. It only mentions cost and category, providing no contextual basis for selection.

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