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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read operation. The description adds two genuinely new points: the output is the organ coefficient, and it is computed by a real algorithm engine rather than generated by an LLM. That determinism note is useful, but units, precision, and error behavior remain undisclosed.

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 two short, front-loaded clauses with zero filler, and the formula appears immediately after the purpose. Minor repetition of the annotation title in brackets keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 three-parameter tool with no required params and no output schema, the description omits several things an agent would need: the response shape (single value or per-item array), units, behavior when a weight array is empty or mismatched, and what 'label' does. It covers the core purpose but is thin on operational detail.

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 each of the three parameters (label, body_weights, organ_weights) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the organ weight and body weight relationship, but it does not clarify roles such as what 'label' controls or how the weight arrays are paired. With the schema doing the documentation work, 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 names a specific resource, the organ coefficient, and states the exact formula (organ weight divided by body weight), which no sibling tool computes. The bracketed label at the start just repeats the annotation title, so the real clarity comes from the second clause rather than the first.

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 phrase '用户要算脏器系数' implies when to use it, which is to compute an organ coefficient, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite conditions, and no comparison against the many other act_animal_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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