classify_lesion_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's educational-only framing adds context beyond the annotations. It explicitly discloses that the tool does not provide diagnostic conclusions, risk levels, or urgency recommendations, which is valuable behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to use this tool in a clinical scenario. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a clear boundary of what the tool does not do. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, educational tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the educational scope and non-diagnostic nature, which is the most important contextual information. It could mention that all parameters are optional, but the schema already shows required: [], so the description need not repeat that. The lack of output schema means the agent won't know the return format, but for an educational description tool this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters clearly. The description adds the overall context that these parameters are ABCDE criteria, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('ABCDE criteria supplied for a lesion'), and clarifies it is educational only. It distinguishes itself from risk assessment tools by explicitly saying it does not name a condition, assign risk, or recommend urgency, which helps differentiate it from siblings like assess_risk_from_factors and get_mole_analysis.

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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when describing ABCDE criteria for a lesion in an educational context. It also provides exclusions by stating what it does NOT do (name a condition, assign risk, recommend urgency), which implicitly tells the agent not to use it for diagnosis or risk assessment. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those purposes.

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