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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists screenings based on criteria, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or the nature of the output. Key behavioral traits beyond basic purpose are missing.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope, inputs, and output type without redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and most input factors. It does not explain the return structure or the two undocumented parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It mentions age, sex, smoking, betel, and family history (covering roughly 6 of 8 parameters semantically), but omits indigenous and pack_years entirely. Given the low schema coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient.

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 verb (列出, list) and resource (公費癌症篩檢, government-funded cancer screenings) scoped to Taiwan year 115 (2026). It implies eligibility logic based on inputs, distinguishing it from generic cancer-risk tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling (health__check_meal_cancer_risk), so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description mentions input factors but does not say in what situations an agent should invoke it. This is a straightforward informational lookup with no context given for selection.

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