calculate_dose_by_weight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a contract about preserving structuredContent fields and never inferring missing clinical facts, which is useful. However, it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description provides moderate transparency but is not comprehensive.

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 brief, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral contract. There is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks important context for proper use. It does not explain parameter effects, output format (though schema exists), or how to handle edge cases like missing max_dose. The agent contract helps but does not fill all gaps.

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 description does not explain any parameters. With schema coverage at only 33% (only locale and output_format have descriptions), the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter meanings, especially for critical ones like dose_per_kg, patient_weight_kg, max_dose, and dose_unit.

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 that the tool calculates weight-based dosage in mg/kg. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like calculate_dose_by_bsa (body surface area) and calculate_pediatric_dose (likely age-based). The addition of 'Agent contract' does not detract from clarity, but the purpose alone is strong.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, contraindications, or when to prefer other dose calculators. The only usage note is about the response handling contract, which is more about output processing than selection criteria.

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