medical.qtc_fridericia

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description correctly focuses on computation behavior instead: Decimal-string inputs, unit consistency between qt/rr and result, and the mpmath 40-digit internal precision returning a 20-significant-digit string. It does not cover error/validation behavior for malformed or out-of-range values, keeping it below a 5.

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, followed by unit/type rules and then precision details. Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies everything needed to invoke the tool correctly, including the precision of the returned string. The remaining gap is the absence of any comparison to the sibling QTc methods for formula selection.

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% (properties carry only titles), so the description must carry the load and largely does: it states qt/rr are Decimal strings, unit defaults to 'ms' with 's' as the alternative, and that both inputs must share the unit. The key misuse trap (RR is an interval, not a bpm rate) is called out explicitly. It does not specify accepted string formats or value ranges.

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 (correct QT for heart rate), the exact resource, and the formula QTc = QT / RR^(1/3), which unambiguously distinguishes it from the Bazett, Framingham and Hodges siblings without the agent needing to open 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?

Usage is implied by the stated formula, and there is a useful negative instruction ("RR을 심박수(bpm)로 넣으면 안 된다"), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer Fridericia over the sibling QTc formulas. The agent must infer the selection criterion.

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