get_dosage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that recommendations are evidence-based, include clinical trial doses by condition, timing, and safety considerations, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the response format, error handling, or behavior for unknown supplements/conditions.

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 conveys the tool's purpose and key features (evidence-based, condition-specific, timing, safety). Every word contributes value; no 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?

For a relatively simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the core aspects: dosage, condition, timing, safety. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing about return structure. Exclusions or prerequisites are absent, making it slightly incomplete but still adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond saying 'by condition', which loosely reinforces the condition parameter's role. It does not provide additional syntax or format details, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving evidence-based dosage recommendations for a supplement. It specifies the resource (dosage recommendations) and the action (get), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like recommend_supplement or check_interactions by focusing solely on dosage.

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: when you need dosage recommendations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are referenced, so guidance is only implicit.

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