fcs_conformance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the tool binds live IRB welfare biomarkers (Ca²⁺, ATP/ADP, firing rate, viability) to taxonomy classes and that it returns a category profile rather than a scalar score. It does not explicitly state whether the operation mutates state, though 'Audit' and 'Returns a profile' strongly imply read-only.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; every clause adds a distinct piece of information (scope, result categories, biomarker binding, output type). No filler or 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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys the conceptual output (four category types) and how live biomarkers feed the taxonomy, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not sketch the profile's concrete shape or interaction of biomarkers with substrate selection, so a little more structure would make it fully complete.

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?

Because schema coverage is only 33%, the description compensates by mapping each biomarker parameter to its taxonomy class (Ca²⁺ → class 1, ATP/ADP → class 7, firing rate → class 3, viability → class 2b). It also clarifies substrate semantics ('one substrate — or all three') but leaves calciumNm, atpAdpRatio, firingRateHz, and viabilityPct without unit or format details.

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 ('Audit') and resource ('one substrate — or all three — against the seventeen species–function pairs'), and enumerates exactly what the result reports (realised/simulated/absent/undeterminable). The closing qualifier 'never a conformance score' disambiguates it from its own name and from sibling tools like fcs_report or fcs_compare.

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 phrase 'one substrate — or all three' tells the agent when the tool applies and that omitting substrate audits all, and 'returns a profile, never a conformance score' warns against using it as a scoring tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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