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 covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait — results come from a real algorithm engine rather than LLM generation — but says nothing about which pathway database is queried, default FDR behavior, or correction method.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return and engine-provenance note; nothing is wasted. The bracketed header is somewhat redundant with the title field but also restates the core purpose compactly.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, purpose and provenance are covered, but 'returns: pathway enrichment' does not tell the agent what fields come back (pathway name, p-value, FDR, hit metabolites) with no output schema to fill the gap. Adequate but with a clear omission.

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 both parameters (metabolites list, FDR threshold) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the metabolites input through the scenario sentence and adds no syntax, identifier-format, or default-value guidance beyond that baseline.

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+resource (metabolite pathway enrichment) and the input condition (a batch of differential metabolites). It implicitly differentiates from siblings such as act_gene_pathway and act_protein_enrichment via the '代谢物' qualifier, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 '用户有一批差异代谢物要找通路' gives a clear triggering scenario, so an agent knows when the tool applies. It stops short of exclusions or routing advice (e.g. when to use act_enrich or act_metabo_volcano instead).

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