calculate_max_heart_rate

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool estimates a value and returns it in a placeholder format, but it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or limitations (e.g., age range or formula applicability). This is minimal behavioral context.

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 concise: two sentences that cover purpose and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, high schema coverage, and an output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and references related tools. It does not explain return values in detail, but the output schema likely handles that. The description could mention formula selection criteria or age range, but it is largely complete for a straightforward calculation 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?

Both parameters are already described in the input schema with clear definitions (age min/max, formula enum with explanations). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond restating the formula types. The description's mention of 'standard or age-adjusted formulas' mirrors the schema, providing no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool estimates maximum heart rate using standard or age-adjusted formulas. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'maximum heart rate' are specific, and the mention of formulas distinguishes it from other calculate_* tools. The reference to list_bundles for related 'sante' calculators further clarifies its domain.

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?

The description provides some guidance by mentioning standard or age-adjusted formulas and suggesting to see list_bundles for related calculators, implying alternative health calculators exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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