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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the operation is free of charge, it is template-scoped only (not free text), and the response includes the extra inputs each template requires. It does not discuss rate limits or whether the list is static, but for a read-only catalog call the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its examples, followed by the scope constraint. The trailing 'Free.' is terse but earns its place as a cost signal; nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by saying the listing includes the extra inputs each template needs, so the agent knows roughly what comes back. The only real omission is any mention of the language parameter's effect on results.

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% and the description never mentions the single lang parameter, so it contributes no meaning there. The gap is partly self-healing because the lang enum values (zh-Hans, zh-Hant, en) are self-explanatory language codes, keeping this at an adequate rather than poor level.

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 (List) and resource (问事书 question templates), then enumerates concrete examples such as love timing and changing jobs so the agent knows the content domain. It does not name any sibling tool, so differentiation from start_wenshi or request_reading must be inferred from the scope note rather than stated.

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 line 'v1 accepts templates only, not free text' gives a real usage boundary and implicitly routes free-text requests elsewhere, which is useful. However it never names the alternative tool or says explicitly when to prefer this over start_wenshi, leaving the agent to infer the handoff.

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