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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses 只读、免鉴权, which are useful safety traits, but does not describe output format, determinism, or rate limits. This is basic behavioral disclosure 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then gives usage examples and a safety note. Dense but mostly earned; the multiple example questions are useful for routing but make it slightly longer than a minimal definition.

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 0-param, read-only explanation tool with no output schema or annotations, it provides purpose, example triggers, and safety traits. Return format is unspecified, but no output schema exists and the description needn't explain return values.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description adds no parameter semantics because none exist.

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 (查询) and resource (最小可行同质集取证判据), then lists concrete sub-questions it answers. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as explain_evidence_mdv.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance through 适合回答... examples like '取证该从哪开始' and 'K=2 是什么意思'. It lacks when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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