egfr_calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the formula used (bedside Schwartz) and the special rule for children under 2 (not applying G1–G5), which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error handling, unit handling (e.g., both creatinine units provided), or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately states the key exception. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered separately. The description adequately conveys the calculation method and an important clinical caveat. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools, making it slightly less complete for an agent deciding among siblings.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the formula and age rule. The schema already documents each parameter with units and required status, so the description adds marginal value here.

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 a specific action: calculate eGFR using the bedside Schwartz formula and determine CKD stage, with an explicit exception for children under 2 years. This distinguishes it from siblings like ckd_stage_overview, which likely provides general staging context rather than calculation.

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?

Usage context is implied by the function name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like interpret_lab_report. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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