ideal_weight_calc

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions cost and category. It does not state that this is a read-only calculation, what it returns, or what inputs are required, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool title and cost, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. The first sentence is effectively a restatement of the name, and the second is pricing, leaving little informative content.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain the tool's purpose, inputs, and output. It only provides a category and cost, which is inadequate for a tool that must be selected among many sibling health calculators.

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's only parameter is a generic 'params' JSON object described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object,' which provides no actual parameter details. The description adds no parameter names, units, or examples, so the agent cannot infer what to pass.

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 essentially restates the tool name as 'ideal weight calc' and labels it a 'Health & Fitness tool' without using a specific verb or explaining what it calculates. This provides minimal functional clarity and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like calculate_bmi or bmr_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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only directive is the cost mention, which is operational rather than usage-oriented.

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