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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'RETURNS: 门控比例', which is useful output context given no output schema, but says nothing about whether events are raw intensities, how many events are expected, or how method choice alters the result.

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 front-loaded and short, with USE WHEN and RETURNS separated into scannable slots. The bilingual duplication of the title and the ALIASES list (流式门控, 圈门, gating, 阳性比例) is keyword padding rather than information, but it is compact enough not to obscure the signal.

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 tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the definition leaves important questions open: what form the events array takes, which gating methods exist, and what keys 'params' accepts. The 'RETURNS: 门控比例' note is the only substantive addition, so an agent could select the tool but would likely have to guess at invocation details.

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%, but the labels are bare restatements ('事件数据', '门控方法', '门控参数') with no enum for method and no defined sub-properties for the nested params object. The description contributes nothing to disambiguate these three parameters, so it lands at the documented baseline for high coverage rather than above it.

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 verb+resource (flow cytometry gating) and states the outcome obtained (population percentages / 门控比例), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as flow_cluster or mif_phenotype, so the agent must infer the boundary from the domain wording.

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: gating / population percentages from flow cytometry data' clause gives a clear triggering condition and is front-loaded. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or pointing to an alternative sibling (e.g. flow_cluster for unsupervised clustering), so it is context without exclusions.

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