calculate_tdee

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, precision, or assumptions about activity level mapping. The description only states the basic operation without depth.

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. The first sentence states purpose and return, the second points to related tools. No redundant information.

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 simple calculator with two parameters and an output schema (implied), the description is largely complete. It mentions the output and points to related tools. Slightly more detail on how activity level affects TDEE could improve it, but it is adequate.

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 descriptions for bmr and activity_level. The description adds the return value format ({tdee_kcal}) but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 verb (calculate), resource (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), and input (BMR and activity level). It also specifies the return value. Among many sibling calculate_* tools, this is distinct and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only points to list_bundles for related calculators, but that does not explain usage context or exclusion criteria.

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