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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds only the output format ('RETURNS: SVG 路线图'); it never says whether a file is written to disk or the SVG is returned inline, nor anything about generation cost or determinism.

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?

Pipe-delimited, front-loaded sections for name, use case, aliases and return value; no filler sentences and nothing repeated across sections.

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, the description must carry return-value detail and it does so only minimally ('SVG 路线图'). For a generator tool it leaves the agent unsure of the response shape (inline markup vs. file path) and any layout assumptions, though input parameters are fully covered by the schema.

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%: all five fields (title, outcome, sample_size, intervention, study_design) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 deliverable precisely: an SVG technical roadmap (研究技术路线图) for a grant or protocol. That is specific verb-plus-resource, though it does not differentiate itself from diagram-adjacent siblings such as consort_flowchart.

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 trigger condition (technical route / workflow diagram for grant or protocol), and the alias list (技术路线图, 流程图, roadmap, etc.) helps match user phrasing. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions.

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