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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) the description adds two genuinely behavioral facts: a hard cap of 12 check items per call with a batching instruction, and a cost of 5 MESH/call. It does not describe the output shape (field names, language, ordering), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the 12-item limit and batching rule, plus a compact cost tag. Nothing is padded, though the title/name is restated at the start without adding information.

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 no output schema and a nested, boilerplate input schema, the description carries the burden of explaining both request and response. It covers the response cap but not the actual return structure, and it never tells the agent what to put in the single 'input' object for this capability.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema's only description is generic boilerplate referencing agent-brain/agent-memory payloads, so it does not actually explain how to pass this tool's inputs. The description partially compensates by naming the two conceptual inputs (equipment type, inspection scenario), but gives no key names, formats, or examples.

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 names a specific transformation ('把工业设备类型和巡检场景转成结构化巡检提问清单') and enumerates scope (mechanical, electrical, instrumentation), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not differentiate itself from the many numbered 'industrial-inspection-q-*' siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 input/output framing, and there is one concrete operational rule: if more than 12 check items are needed, split into batches. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to any alternative, including the near-identical sibling questionnaires.

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