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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds "RETURNS: 每组动物数", which is useful because there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about which statistical test it assumes, the defaults applied for alpha, power, and groups, or whether the effect_size is Cohen's d.

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 a single front-loaded line with clearly labeled sections, and every clause serves selection or invocation. The alias list is long, but it is keyword-oriented and supports retrieval rather than prose padding.

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 simple, read-only calculator with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. Still, because the tool is a power calculation and has no output schema, the description should disclose default alpha and power values and the underlying test assumption; these details are needed to call the tool correctly and are missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (α, 把握度, 组数, 效应量). The description adds no clarification beyond that, not even stating that greater power or more groups increases the required sample size, or that effect_size is the single required input. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific resource and outcome: computing the number of animals per group from a power calculation, framed in ARRIVE/3R terms. It distinguishes this tool from general statistics tools by explicitly stating that it is for animal experiments, although it does not directly name the sibling sample_size_calculator or explain how it differs from that tool.

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 "USE WHEN: how many animals per group are needed (power-based, ARRIVE/3R wording)" clause gives a clear trigger, and the alias list resolves ambiguous user phrasings such as 每组几只 and 动物要多少只. It provides no when-not guidance and no explicit alternative such as sample_size_calculator.

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