calc_prnt_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses special behaviors like is_edema triggering ideal body weight correction and pd_glucose_kcal_per_day deducting energy targets. It also mentions Schofield cross-check for informational output. However, it stops short of explicitly stating that the tool is read-only or safe, though that is implied by 'calculate'.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence and clinical details in the second. It is efficient but the second sentence is dense with technical terms, which is justified given the complexity. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 10 parameters, complex clinical logic, and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the key special cases and adjustments. It does not explain the SDI methodology in depth or potential limitations, but the output schema removes the need to describe return values. The description is sufficiently complete for a 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the key non-obvious parameters: is_edema ('启用水肿理想体重校正'), pd_glucose_kcal_per_day ('扣减膳食能量目标'), and refers to dialysis add-ons, vegetarian multiples, and growth status adjustments which map to other parameters. This significantly adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: '按 PRNT 2020 计算儿童 CKD 每日能量与蛋白质目标' (calculate daily energy and protein targets for pediatric CKD using PRNT 2020). It specifies the method (age×sex segmented SDI) and adjustments, distinguishing it from siblings like assess_intake_vs_target and assess_pew_risk.

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 implies usage through its purpose (calculating targets for children with CKD) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions clinical features but lacks direct references to sibling tools or exclusions for cases where other tools would be more appropriate.

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