dehydration_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that severity is based on standard scales and that severe responses include a directive for immediate medical attention. This adds useful behavioral context beyond basic 'score' verb.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Some minor fluff ('powered by Vari') slightly reduces score, but overall concise and structured.

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 no output schema, the description explains return value includes a recommended action and severe-response handling. It references clinical guidelines. Could be more specific about output format, but sufficient for this 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 coverage is 100% with descriptive enum names and parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing the clinical basis. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 scores dehydration severity into four levels using a named clinical scale (Goldman et al. 2008, WHO guidelines), distinguishes from sibling tools like pregnancy_water_intake by its focus on symptom-based severity assessment.

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 when to use: when self-reported symptoms are available and severity assessment is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling tools cover different hydration scenarios.

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