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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses read-only access, no authentication, no fabricated bindings, and defines the tier semantics and non-binding states. It still does not describe return shape, pagination, or error behavior, but the behavioral profile is substantially covered.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and tier definitions, but it is somewhat overloaded and contains an internal inconsistency: category_only is listed both as one of the four strength tiers and as one of the two non-binding states. That duplication may confuse an agent and hurts structural clarity.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough context: tier definitions, non-binding states, scope restriction, and usage examples. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the actual return structure, and the category_only ambiguity slightly reduces completeness.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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 states a specific verb (查询) and resource (open-source VLA → robot body binding and strength tiers), making the tool's subject clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but its scope ('只绑开源 VLA') helps distinguish it from broader component/compatibility tools.

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?

It gives concrete example questions ('OpenVLA 能装在哪台机器人上', '这个绑定可信吗') and an exclusion for closed-source VLA models. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicitly stating when another sibling should be chosen instead.

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