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 fully covered. The description adds only the 'RETURNS: 微环境分型与预后提示' line, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it is terse and does not explain how the typing is derived or what the prognosis hint consists of.

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?

Pipe-delimited sections with USE WHEN, ALIASES and RETURNS are front-loaded and scannable, with no filler sentences. The alias list is somewhat long but serves retrieval, which is a legitimate cost.

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 four-parameter analytic tool with no output schema, the description explains what goes in and roughly what comes out, but leaves the return structure and the meaning of 'prognosis hint' undefined. An agent could call it correctly but could not predict the response shape.

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 all four parameters (tils_pct, cd8_count, pd_l1_pos, cancer_type) are already documented in the schema. The description names three of the inputs but adds no units, ranges, or guidance on which combination is needed; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific analytic action (assess tumour immune microenvironment) plus the concrete inputs it works from (TILs / CD8 / PD-L1) and the output it produces (typing + prognosis hint). An agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools like ihc_hscore or mif_phenotype, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 an explicit trigger condition with the required data types, which is the right level of guidance for a computation tool. There are no when-not conditions and no named alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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