medical.qtc_bazett

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: internal computation at mpmath 40 digits, return of a 20-significant-digit string with no fixed decimal rounding, and the known over-correction bias at short RR. That precision and limitation disclosure is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and formula, then unit contract, then numeric precision, then the clinical caveat that routes to a sibling. Four dense sentences with no filler; the mpmath/20-significant-digit detail earns its place for a numeric calculator where output precision matters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still discloses output precision and unit. Combined with the formula, unit contract, and the short-RR caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and it does: qt and rr are Decimal strings, unit defaults to 'ms' with 's' as the alternative, both inputs must share the same unit, and the output uses that same unit. All three parameters are given semantics and the cross-parameter unit constraint is spelled out.

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 (보정한다 / correct), a specific resource (QT 간격 by heart rate), and gives the exact formula QTc = QT / sqrt(RR). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling medical.qtc_fridericia, medical.qtc_framingham, and medical.qtc_hodges without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative (Fridericia) and the condition that selects it: fast heart rate / short RR where Bazett over-corrects. That is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when Bazett is the preferred choice (normal HR range) and never mentions the other two QTc siblings, so it is not a complete when/when-not map.

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