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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that results come back in both mg and mL, which is useful output context. It does not say whether the calculation applies maximum-dose caps, whether frequency/interval is returned, or that it is a pure non-mutating computation — meaningful gaps for a clinical dosing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that spends its words on scope and formulation coverage with no filler. The parenthetical list makes it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

Two fully documented parameters and no output schema mean the definition is usable as-is, and the description supplies the output units. It still leaves the agent unsure what exactly is returned (single dose vs daily total, frequency, max-dose handling), which matters for a dosage tool with no annotations.

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%: the drug enum lists all formulation IDs and weight_kg documents the 2–60 kg range. The description names the drug families but does not map them to the enum identifiers (e.g. amox_clav_228 vs amox_clav_457) or clarify concentration assumptions, so it adds little 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?

States a specific verb and resource (calculate weight-based paediatric drug dosage in mg and mL) and scopes it to named Nigerian EML/WHO formulations, which clearly separates it from the finance/state-SHIS siblings. The only blemish is the stated count of '7 formulations' against 6 names listed, which is a minor inaccuracy rather than a purpose ambiguity.

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 paediatric weight-based framing implies when to use it, and the sibling tools are unrelated enough that mis-selection is unlikely. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no statement about non-paediatric or out-of-range weights (beyond the schema bound), and no mention of alternatives.

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