calc_nutrition_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context about dialysis add-on and edema weight correction, which indicates how parameters affect the calculation. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, deterministic, or how it handles invalid inputs, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the target population, standard, and key adjustments. No redundant words; every phrase adds value.

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?

Despite the output schema covering return values, the tool has 9 parameters with zero documentation in the schema. A one-sentence description cannot adequately guide an agent on how to correctly set parameters like growth_status or pd_glucose_kcal_per_day. It is underspecified for the tool's complexity.

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% for 9 parameters. The description only implies that dialysis and edema-related parameters are relevant, but gives no guidance on units, allowed values, or the role of growth_status and pd_glucose_kcal_per_day. This is insufficient compensation for completely undocumented parameters.

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 it calculates daily energy and protein targets for children with CKD per PRNT 2020, and explicitly mentions dialysis add-on and edema body weight corrections. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc_pnpr or calc_pd_glucose_absorption.

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 gives clear context: use for pediatric CKD patients requiring PRNT 2020-based nutrition targets. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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