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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: 'RETURNS: 聚类热图' merely repeats the tool name, and it never says whether the result is an image, an HTML widget, or a JSON payload with cluster ordering, nor whether clustering method/distance is configurable or fixed. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is close to zero incremental behavioral value.

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 pipe-delimited tag format is compact and front-loaded, and an agent can parse the USE WHEN and ALIASES segments quickly. There is mild redundancy: the title is repeated in the first token and 'RETURNS: 聚类热图' duplicates the tool name, and the mixed English/Chinese duplication inflates length without adding meaning.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials for invocation are present. What is missing is the return contract — image versus data, and how cluster labels are surfaced — which an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or a downstream plotting step, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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 the data_json property description is unusually rich, spelling out the matrix/rows/cols shape, optional groups, p_values and log2fc arrays, and the exact validation error. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it contributes nothing beyond the schema; the baseline 3 applies because the schema itself does the work.

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' / '聚类热图') and adds the qualifier 'clustered', which is more informative than the bare title. However, there is no verb ('generates', 'renders', 'plots') and no hint at what the output artifact is, so the agent must infer that this produces a clustered heatmap figure rather than, say, clustering assignments. Siblings such as metabolite_pca, metabolite_plsda and metabolite_volcano are not referenced at all.

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?

'USE WHEN: clustered heatmap of metabolites' restates the tool's own function instead of describing a scenario, so it gives no real selection signal. There are no exclusions and no routing to sibling metabolite tools (e.g. PCA for dimensionality reduction, volcano for differential results), which is a notable gap given the dense metabolite_* family.

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