medical.has_bled

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so no safety disclosure is needed; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — the 0–9 point range and the risk_level cutoffs (≤2 low, ≥3 high) — plus the hard requirement that all nine booleans be supplied with no defaults.

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?

One compact paragraph, purpose front-loaded, then scoring rules, then thresholds, then the input constraint, then the caveat. No filler sentences.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description still supplies the interpretation thresholds an agent needs to explain results. With 9 required params at 0% schema coverage, nothing material is missing 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 coverage is 0% (only bare titles like 'Labile Inr'), so the description carries the full load and does: it maps every factor to its letter, notes that renal and liver each score 1, that drugs and alcohol each score 1, that elderly means >65, and that all nine are required with no defaults.

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 verb and resource: calculating the HAS-BLED major-bleeding risk score in anticoagulated patients, and it spells out the acronym so the agent knows what each factor is. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling medical.cha2ds2_vasc, which an agent may see as a competing bleeding/stroke risk score.

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 clinical population (anticoagulated patients) is stated and '판단 보조용이다' signals decision-support rather than definitive diagnosis, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing against cha2ds2_vasc or framingham_cvd_10y.

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