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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral details: commands can be chained with ';' up to 8 times, and the player_code parameter behavior is explained (server issues one on first play, omitting it creates a temporary game). This goes beyond what a typical schema would convey.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action in both Chinese and English, and includes relevant examples plus a key constraint (max 8 chained commands). Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, command syntax, chaining rule, and save-code behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. The sibling tools cover manuals and save management, so no additional context is needed.

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 description largely repeats the schema's parameter documentation (e.g., examples and chaining rule for 'command'). The added value is marginal—it reinforces the chaining limit and save-code instructions, but does not introduce new semantics beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool executes fishing commands ('Run a fishing command') and identifies it as 'the main gameplay channel,' distinguishing it from siblings like fishing_manual or fishing_share_card. It provides concrete command examples (cast, status, buy), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The phrase '一切游戏操作走这里' (all game operations go through here) tells the agent when to use this tool for gameplay actions. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like fishing_manual or fishing_new_game, the sibling names and the term 'main gameplay channel' imply that other tools handle non-command tasks (manual, save info, sharing).

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