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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about what happens when a range is supplied (how the sweep is applied, what shape of result comes back, whether sensitivity indices or bands are produced), nor any read-only/compute-only assurance; only the paragraph-length description could have covered this.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a concrete example and zero filler. Its brevity is a virtue, though for a 12-parameter tool it leaves little structure to hang the remaining context on.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not describe the result of a sensitivity run, how ranges are combined, or the consequences of correction_id / clint_censored interacting with a sweep. Much of this burden falls on the schema text, leaving the description incomplete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (rb, clint, assay_type, correction_id, clint_censored, etc.). The description adds only a motivational gloss on fu_p_range via its example and does not explain the semantics of the range objects or how multiple simultaneous ranges interact.

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?

States a specific verb-like concept and target: how far plasma CL moves as each input is varied over a range, with a concrete example (predicted fu,p over its 50% range). This clearly distinguishes it from a plain calculation tool like calc_clhep, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 is only implied: vary an input over a range to see the effect on CL. There is no explicit when-to-use vs calc_clhep, no when-not, and no statement of prerequisites (the schema's correction_id note hints at matching species/assay_type but the description does not route the agent).

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