calculate_dose_by_bsa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by specifying an 'Agent contract' to preserve structured fields and not infer missing clinical facts. However, it does not disclose error handling, validation rules, or the mathematical formula used (e.g., Mosteller).

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 concise at three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. The latter two sentences about the agent contract are somewhat meta but not overly verbose. It could be slightly more structured, but overall it is efficient.

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 has 7 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, the description is quite sparse. It does not explain the output structure (though output schema exists), the BSA formula used, or any constraints on input values. More context would be beneficial for effective use.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain the meanings of parameters like 'dose_per_m2', 'height_cm', 'weight_kg', 'max_dose', or 'dose_unit'. It only restates the concept of BSA-based dosage. This is insufficient to compensate for the low coverage.

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 BSA-based dosage in mg/m², commonly used in oncology. This is specific and includes the unit and context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_dose_by_weight' or 'calculate_pediatric_dose', so it's not a 5.

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 an 'Agent contract' about preserving output fields but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like weight-based dosing or other calculation tools. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.

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