Parkland Formula

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that this is a 24-hour crystalloid estimate, which is meaningful context beyond the tool name. It does not spell out the 4 mL/kg/%TBSA coefficient or explicitly state the output is a total volume, but 'classic Parkland-formula' and 'estimate' encode the essential behavior.

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 with no filler. Every word adds value: 'classic', 'Parkland-formula', '24-hour', and 'crystalloid estimate' all clarify scope and behavior.

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 two-parameter formula with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It conveys the domain, the timeframe, and the estimate nature. The only notable gap is explicit guidance about when to choose a sibling tool, but this is minor for this calculator.

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 already describes both parameters (weight_kg and tbsa_percentage) with meaningful constraints, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('calculate') and a specific resource ('classic Parkland-formula 24-hour crystalloid estimate'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like bsa_mosteller and drip_rate_calculator without needing to open their schemas.

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 intended use is implied by the formula name: burn resuscitation fluid estimation. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention that drip_rate_calculator may be relevant for rate conversion or that bsa_mosteller handles surface area instead.

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