NutriBalance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that calculations are 'personalised' based on inputs, but does not describe error handling for invalid parameter combinations, rate limits, or the specific macro calculation methodology (e.g., percentage-based vs fixed protein).

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 with zero waste. First sentence defines function and scope; second sentence provides usage triggers. Front-loaded with the most critical information (what it calculates) and avoids redundancy with schema details.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly lists the three output categories (TDEE, BMR, macro targets) and their components (protein, carbs, fat), giving the agent clear expectations of return value structure. Deducted one point as it could clarify whether results include per-meal or daily targets.

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 100%, with all 6 parameters fully documented (weight_kg, height_cm, age, gender, activity_level, goal). The description references 'user's stats and goal' generally but does not add semantic details, validation logic, or input guidance beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries full load.

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?

Description specifies exact calculations performed (TDEE, BMR, macro targets) and the inputs required (user's stats and goal). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'lookup_nutrition' (food data) or 'generate_meal_plan' (meal construction) by focusing on metabolic calculations.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('when someone asks how many calories they should eat', 'maintenance calories', 'how to set up their macros'). Lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use or named sibling alternatives (e.g., don't use for specific food nutrition lookup).

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