daily_standards

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral modes: listing stage-wise standards and producing individualized goals. It doesn't explain calculation details or side effects, but for an informational/reference tool, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main function in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. It is concise with no redundant wording.

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 complexity (12 params, many optional) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the primary use cases and output scope well. It doesn't address edge cases or interactions with other tools, but the essential context for when to use it is present.

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% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning that the tool handles nutrients and stages, but it doesn't elaborate on any specific parameter.

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 provides daily nutritional intake standards for energy, protein, sodium, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, and fluid for the child. It uses a specific verb ('给出' / provide) and a defined resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like can_eat by explaining when it should be used (e.g., when stage is unknown).

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 gives two usage scenarios: when a parent asks 'can XX eat' without a CKD stage, call this tool to list standards for each stage for comparison; after confirming stage, use it to give individualized goals. It does not mention alternative tools by name, but the contextual triggers are clear.

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