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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: '真实算法引擎执行，非大模型生成', signalling deterministic, auditable computation rather than generative output. It says nothing about how invalid or out-of-range grade combinations are handled, which is the main behavioral uncertainty for a 5x5 grade-pair input.

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?

Two compact segments: a bracketed purpose label followed by a usage condition and return statement. It is front-loaded and free of padding, though the bracket-glyph formatting and the '返回：' colon introduce mild structural noise rather than flowing prose.

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 two-integer-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, trigger context, deterministic execution note, and what is returned (Grade Group and risk stratification). Given there is no output schema, one could ask for slightly more detail on the return structure, but an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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% (both primary_grade and secondary_grade are documented as integers 1-5), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no clarification on ordering (primary vs secondary), no note on what happens with equal grades or grade 1+1, and no range/validity constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 names the resource and operation precisely: Gleason grading grouping, mapping a prostate cancer Gleason score to its Grade Group plus risk stratification. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool (all of which are unrelated statistical/omics utilities), so no disambiguation is needed. It stops short of a truly distinctive verb form, and the bracketed label repeats the annotation title.

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 phrase '用户问前列腺癌 Gleason 评分对应哪个 Grade Group' implies the trigger condition (user asks about Gleason score to Grade Group conversion), which is usable context. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no mention of related tools (e.g. act_risk_ratio or act_survival_analyze for downstream risk analysis), and no prerequisites or input validation guidance.

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