interpret_12_lead_ecg

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that scores are uncalibrated and not for clinical use, but lacks detail on mode selection behavior when both parameters are provided, and does not mention permissions or error states.

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 sentences: action, mode explanation, result warning. Front-loaded and without superfluous words.

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?

The description covers core purpose and a usage warning, but for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on parameter usage, output structure, and edge cases, making it adequate but not 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?

The description provides minimal parameter-level meaning by linking case_id to default mode and ecg_array to raw ECG mode, but does not explain what a case_id is, the expected format of ecg_array, or the role of sampling_rate. Given 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool runs AI-ECG analysis on a 12-lead recording, with two distinct modes (case_id and raw ECG). It differentiates itself well from siblings, which handle other tasks like data analysis or handoff notes.

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 explains two modes (default case_id vs. advanced raw ECG) and includes a 'NOT for clinical use' warning. It does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over siblings, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct in purpose.

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