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 states read-only and auth-free behavior ('只读、免鉴权'), the same engine as /api/compatibility, the downgrade rule at <2 evidence items, and explicit listing of missing evidence. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; each clause adds a distinct fact: purpose, engine identity, governor behavior, return contract, and auth. The most important behavioral caveats are front-loaded.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers safety, return summary, and logic. Minor gap: the four dimensions and evidence-contract structure are named but not detailed, and there is no explicit routing to simpler siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents ID format and the search_components prerequisite. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: '对两个零部件做「多 Agent 质保复核」'. It differentiates itself from plain compatibility checks by describing the Worker/Governor layered review and L0–L3 risk grading, making it distinguishable from siblings like check_compatibility and bom_compatibility_check.

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 clearly frames the tool for high-assurance QA review scenarios ('质保复核', 'Governor 层独立复核结论'), so an agent can infer when a deeper audit is wanted. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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