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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: the next scan will treat posts matching the time window as new and re-deliver them. That is exactly the behavioral context needed for a destructive reset. It stops short of covering permissions, reversibility, or whether the cleared data can be recovered.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and then the consequence and warning, with no filler. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral fact (the re-push side effect) plus a caution. Only permission/auth requirements and reversibility are absent, which are minor gaps here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema cannot be improved upon. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level ambiguity exists.

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 action and target: clearing the seen/dedup store ('清空已见去重库'). It is unambiguous about what is reset, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like scan_accounts, which is the tool whose behavior it affects.

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 rather than stated: the parenthetical warning '慎用' (use with caution) and the explanation of the downstream effect tell the agent to avoid this casually, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition or named alternative is given. The agent must infer the context from the scan-related consequence.

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