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 without the description. The only added behavioral claim is the thin 'RETURNS: 亚组表', which restates the title rather than describing output shape, statistics computed, or table layout.

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 structure is tightly front-loaded: purpose, use-when, aliases, returns. The alias list is long but serves retrieval matching across English and Chinese phrasings; no sentence is wasted, though 'RETURNS: 亚组表' is near-zero information.

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?

With no output schema and a returns note that merely echoes the title, the description leaves the agent unsure what the table contains or how it differs structurally from the baseline table. Parameter documentation is handled by the schema, so the remaining gap is output expectation, which is only minimally addressed.

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 all four parameters (file_id, group_variable, subgroup_variable, variables_to_include) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of stratification reinforces subgroup_variable but adds no syntax, format, or selection semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb-equivalent and resource: baseline characteristics split by a subgroup variable, with concrete examples (by sex, by centre). It does not name the closest sibling table_one_baseline, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'subgroup' alone.

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?

An explicit 'USE WHEN' clause states the triggering condition with two examples, which is more than most sibling tools offer. It stops short of exclusions, i.e. it never says to use table_one_baseline instead when no stratification is needed.

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