calculate_creatinine_clearance

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description includes an ‘Agent contract’ that discloses important behavioral traits: using structuredContent as source of truth, preserving schema fields (schema_version, status, sources, warnings, errors, meta), and never inferring missing clinical facts. This adds valuable context about data handling beyond what annotations might provide.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one stating the primary function and formula, and one laying out the agent contract. It is efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose, though the agent contract might be considered slightly verbose for non-agent users.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned in the description), the tool is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, formula, and data handling rules. One minor gap is not explicitly stating that values should be in specific units (e.g., mg/dL for creatinine), but the clinical context and formula name likely suffice.

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 low (33%), with only locale and output_format having descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on the required parameters (age_years, weight_kg, serum_creatinine, gender) beyond what is implied by the tool's purpose. However, these clinical parameters are self-explanatory given the Cockcroft-Gault formula, so the description adds moderate value.

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 creatinine clearance using the Cockcroft-Gault formula for renal dosing adjustments. This specific verb-resource combination (‘calculate creatinine clearance’) and the mention of the formula make it distinct from siblings like check_drug_interaction or get_renal_adjustment.

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 use for renal dosing adjustments, which is a reasonable usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_renal_adjustment, nor does it provide instructions on when not to use it (e.g., in patients with unstable renal function).

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