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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the conversion basis (body-surface-area method per FDA guidance) and stating the return content ('换算后剂量与依据'), but says nothing about supported species, input validation, or failure behavior for unrecognized species.

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?

Piped, front-loaded, and free of filler prose; the operative 'USE WHEN' clause appears before aliases and return info. The ALIASES block is slightly bulky but plausibly aids query matching rather than 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 three-parameter read-only calculator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, and return content adequately. The main omission is any indication of valid species values or the unit expected for source_dose, which is a real gap given there are no enums and no nested structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes unit context (mg/kg vs mg/m²) that the terse Chinese schema labels ('来源剂量') do not, but it never states which unit source_dose must be supplied in, and no species enum exists to constrain the free-text species fields.

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 and resource ('convert an animal dose to a human equivalent dose'), plus the exact unit transformation (mg/kg ↔ mg/m²) and the methodological standard (FDA guidance). This is clearly separable from nearby siblings such as animal_dose_volume or renal_dose_adjust.

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' clause gives an explicit triggering condition (animal → human equivalent dose), which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. It does not name a when-not case or a specific alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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