classify_ckd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool requires specific inputs, returns a structured output, and is restricted to physicians (an auth-related trait). It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or how it handles invalid inputs, but the computational nature is implied and the description adds context beyond the raw schema.

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 compact and front-loaded. It uses three short sentences to convey purpose, input requirements, and output. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 classification tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the primary purpose, inputs, output summary, and a clinical reference (KDIGO 2024). Minor gaps include handling of cases where both uacr and upcr are provided or invalid eGFR values, but these are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that eGFR is required and that uacr and upcr are two alternative measures of albuminuria ('albuminuria choose one'). This gives meaningful context to the parameters, though it does not provide units or acceptable value ranges (which are partially evident from parameter names).

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's function: performing KDIGO 2024 pediatric CKD combined staging. It specifies the required input (eGFR) and optional albuminuria measures, and lists the return values (G/A stage, combined stage, explanation, follow-up intensity). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool calc_egfr_schwartz, which calculates eGFR, by focusing on staging.

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 clear input prerequisites ('eGFR required; choose one of uacr or upcr') and a restriction ('physician only'). This indicates when the tool can be used and by whom. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool instead of the sibling, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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