calc_pd_glucose_absorption

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note the key behavior that the result is to be subtracted from the dietary energy goal, but it fails to disclose how inputs like transport_type or exchanges_per_day affect the calculation, any assumptions, or what the output represents beyond the deduction.

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 with no redundant wording, making it highly concise. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity for a tool with multiple parameters and defaults, so it is not ideal but still avoids fluff.

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 the tool has five parameters, two required, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It provides a clue about its role (deducting from dietary energy) but does not explain the workflow, parameter dependencies, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, yet the description does not mention any parameter names or explain how they influence the result. It only references the overall concept of glucose absorption, leaving all five parameters completely unexplained.

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 estimates peritoneal dialysis glucose absorption and the associated extra energy, explicitly noting it should be deducted from the dietary energy target. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc_nutrition_target, which focuses on overall nutrition goals.

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 its use when calculating dietary energy targets for patients on peritoneal dialysis, since the estimated energy must be deducted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the usage guidance implicit.

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