medical.qtc_hodges

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: Decimal arithmetic, no rounding, result echoed in the input unit, and hr_bpm returned alongside. It does not discuss valid physiological ranges or error behavior, which keeps it from 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?

The formula is front-loaded, followed by unit rules, then numeric-precision behavior, then the misuse warning. Six short clauses, each carrying distinct information with no repetition.

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 3-parameter pure calculator with an output schema, the description covers units, input types, precision, and the returned hr_bpm; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 load and does: qt and rr are Decimal strings, unit accepts 'ms' (default) or 's', both inputs must share the same unit, and the output unit matches the input. This is exactly the information the bare schema lacks.

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 the specific operation (Hodges-formula heart-rate correction of QT) and gives the exact formula, which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools qtc_bazett, qtc_fridericia and qtc_framingham even though those names are not mentioned.

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 one hard exclusion ('RR 대신 심박수를 넣으면 안 된다'), which prevents a common misuse. However it never states when to prefer Hodges over the other QTc variants in the same family, so sibling selection is left to the caller's own knowledge.

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