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. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that results come from a real algorithm engine rather than LLM generation, but says nothing about output format, failure modes, or data requirements beyond what the schema states.

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?

It is a single short line with a bracketed label followed by the trigger and return value, so nothing is padded. The telegraphic phrasing is efficient but reads as stacked fragments rather than explanatory 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 read-only single-parameter plotting tool with a fully documented schema, most of what an agent needs is present. However, the return value is only stated as '火山图' with no indication of whether that is an image, a file path, or accompanying statistics, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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% and data_json is documented in detail, including the matrix/rows/cols shape, optional groups, and optional p_values/log2fc fields plus a concrete rejection message. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (metabolite volcano plot) and an action (draw), so the general intent is recoverable, but '用户要画代谢物火山图' essentially restates the tool name and annotation title rather than adding specificity. Nothing distinguishes it from the other metabolomics plotting siblings beyond the word 'volcano' embedded in its own name.

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 '用户要画代谢物火山图' functions as a trigger condition, but it is simply the tool name restated. No alternatives (act_metabo_heatmap, act_metabo_pca, act_metabo_plsda, act_metabo_enrichment) are named, and no prerequisites or when-not conditions are given, despite four parallel metabolomics tools competing for the same user intent.

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