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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only and auth-free operation, and warns that the number is one debatable caliber rather than objective measurement, plus explains the non-obvious gated rule (composed=0 forces the body dimension to 0). It does not describe output shape or any caching/rate behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with what is computed, then usage examples, then the caliber caveat – a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense but every clause (dimensions, 分子/分母/口径, 门控 vs 朴素) carries information; the repeated 口径 phrasing is the only minor slack.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what is returned, how it is computed, the gated-vs-naive distinction, and the read-only/auth-free profile. The one remaining gap is the concrete response shape, which the absence of an output schema leaves to inference.

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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 resource (核心目标完成度) and exactly what it returns: four-dimension decomposition with numerator/denominator/口径/gap plus weighted completion under two calibers. It is clearly distinct from the compatibility/composition/component siblings, though it never names an alternative, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives concrete trigger questions ('这个项目做到什么程度了', '核心目标完成了几成', 'composed 为什么是 0'), which is a clear usage context. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to any sibling tool for adjacent questions, so it stops short of a 5.

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