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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only behavioral addition is 'RETURNS: 分期结论与解读', which hints at an interpretive result but gives no detail on the stage scale, ranges, or what happens with missing inputs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 format is compact and front-loads the USE WHEN trigger ahead of aliases and return info. The ALIASES block is largely keyword padding for retrieval rather than information an agent needs to invoke the tool, keeping this just short of a 5.

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 small read-only lookup this is nearly sufficient, but with both parameters optional and no output schema, the description should say what stage scale is expected as input (raw Ishak score vs. already-assigned stage) and what the returned interpretation contains. Those gaps matter for correct invocation.

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 'stage' and 'method' are already documented (including the ishak/metavir/nas values). The description adds no syntax, valid range, or mapping direction beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies. It notably omits 'nas', which the schema lists as a valid method.

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 concrete operation and its target: mapping fibrosis scores to Ishak / METAVIR stages. This is distinguishable from every sibling (gleason_grade_group and similar grading tools cover other domains), though the extra Chinese label and alias list dilute the core statement slightly.

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: map fibrosis scores to Ishak / METAVIR stage' clause gives an explicit triggering condition, which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of exclusions or pointing to an alternative when the user has, say, a NAS score or a non-liver grading task.

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