ckd_stage_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the intended audience (parent version), the trigger scenario, and the return structure (each entry contains stage, focus, potassium, phosphorus, protein, sodium). This gives sufficient context for a safe read-only list operation, though it does not explicitly state that it is a static overview.

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 short and front-loaded. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the final line lists the output fields. Every word earns its place without fluff or redundancy.

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's simplicity and existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what it does, when to use it, and what is returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like daily_standards, which might also provide dietary recommendations, leaving some potential ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input semantics and instead focuses on what the output will be, which is appropriate for a parameterless lookup tool.

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: listing all CKD stages' dietary management principles (potassium/phosphorus/protein/sodium) for parents. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'all CKD stages' make it unambiguous, and the audience (parent version) distinguishes it from potentially similar clinical tools.

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 explicitly states when to call: when the parent has not specified the stage and needs to understand that different stages are very different. This provides a clear trigger and implies when not to use it (when the stage is already known), but it does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings.

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