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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the description is not expected to repeat it. What it should add — the formula (is the ratio multiplied by 100?), unit assumptions for body_weights vs organ_weights, and behavior when all-optional arrays are omitted — is entirely absent; 'RETURNS: 脏器系数' merely restates the tool name.

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 format is easy to scan and the whole text is short. However, '脏器系数' appears three times (name, USE WHEN, RETURNS) and the RETURNS field conveys no information, so several tokens are pure repetition.

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?

With three parameters that are all optional and no output schema, the description must explain what a call with missing arrays does and what shape the result takes. It does neither — 'RETURNS: 脏器系数' does not tell the agent whether it receives a scalar, a list, or a labeled table — so an agent cannot confidently invoke it without trial and error.

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%, with label/body_weights/organ_weights each documented in Chinese, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing extra — notably it does not clarify the expected array-length pairing between body_weights and organ_weights, which is the one semantic risk an agent would want resolved.

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 the exact quantity computed — 'organ weight / body weight ratio (脏器系数)' — which is a specific, unambiguous resource distinct from every listed sibling (dose volume, tumor volume, organ-adjacent tools). It is not a generic restatement of the name, though it never contrasts itself with near neighbors like tumor_growth_inhibition.

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 supplies a trigger condition, but that condition ('organ weight / body weight ratio') is simply the definition of the tool, so it adds no real selection guidance. There are no when-not conditions, no prerequisite data requirements, and no named alternatives, leaving usage only implied.

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