calculate_clinical_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool provides educational information only and that clinical decisions must be made by qualified providers. It also enumerates the full scope of supported calculators. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but for a stateless calculator, the educational disclaimer and scope are key behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with purpose and ends with a vital disclaimer, but it is overly long because it repeats the full calculator list already present in the schema's enum descriptions. The list could be condensed, and the redundancy makes it less concise than optimal.

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?

This is a complex tool with 16 calculators requiring different input structures. The description gives names and clinical uses but does not explain how to structure 'inputs' for each calculator, saying only 'see tool schemas for details' (not provided here). There is no output schema, so return values are also unspecified. The description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in many cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, including detailed enum values for 'calculator' and a description for 'inputs' (though vague). The description largely duplicates the enum list without adding new parameter-level meaning, especially for the nested 'inputs' object. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the weight.

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 calculates clinical decision rule scores for severity/risk assessment. It lists 16 specific calculators, which strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch articles, manage patient profiles, or search medical info. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'clinical decision rule scores' are explicit.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to assess disease severity, stratify risk, and guide decision-making, including determining level of care. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a calculator with obvious use cases.

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