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 and the description only needs to add computational context. It does state the two analyses performed and the high-level return (KM curve + log-rank), but says nothing about what the log-rank output contains (p-value, chi-square, df) or whether the curve is a rendered plot versus numeric data.

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, front-loaded layout puts the when-to-use condition ahead of aliases, and nothing is redundant filler. The bilingual aliases add length but serve genuine tool-matching value; the only weak segment is the terse RETURNS field.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and "RETURNS: KM 曲线与 log-rank" is too thin for a four-required-parameter statistical tool. An agent still cannot tell what shape the result takes or what assumptions (paired arrays, event coding) must hold before calling.

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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. This is a real gap for ctrl_events/treat_events, which are labelled only "对照组事件"/"给药组事件" and never explained as 0/1 censoring indicators that must align element-wise with the corresponding time arrays.

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 method pair and resource: "Kaplan-Meier and log-rank on animal death/survival times", which is more precise than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings kaplan_meier and survival_cox, so an agent must infer that this tool is the animal-experiment variant.

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 a clear triggering condition (animal death/survival times analysed with KM and log-rank). It never states when NOT to use it or points to kaplan_meier / survival_cox as alternatives, so the routing is helpful but not complete.

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