medical.qtc_framingham

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: exact Decimal arithmetic, no rounding, internal conversion to seconds, and results returned in the caller's input unit. The only gap is that it does not state what the output payload looks like, which the output schema covers anyway.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the formula, then parameter contract, then numeric semantics, then the critical misuse warning. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema titles.

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 small deterministic calculator with three params, full annotations, and an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: the math, the unit contract, precision behavior, and the one classic input mistake. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 carries the full load and does: qt and rr are Decimal strings, unit accepts 'ms' (default) or 's', both inputs must share the same unit, and rr must not be a bpm value. All three parameters are given meaning that the schema alone does not provide.

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?

Names a specific computational act and the exact formula variant ('Framingham 선형 공식', QTc = QT + 0.154 * (1 - RR_초)), which is precisely what distinguishes it from the sibling qtc_bazett/fridericia/hodges tools. An agent can pick the right QTc correction 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?

Gives concrete usage context: both values must be in the same unit, unit is 'ms' by default or 's', and explicitly forbids passing RR as a heart rate in bpm. It stops short of naming the alternative QTc formulas as fallbacks, so tool-choice guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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