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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the no-auth ('匿名可调用') requirement and the no-query default behavior, but says nothing about return format or pagination. Meaningful context added, but not a full behavioral profile.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the anonymous-access note then the default behavior then the parameter constraint. Zero waste.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers access, default behavior, and param format. It stops short of describing what the returned FAQ items look like, but that is a minor gap for such a lightweight tool.

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 0%, so the description must fully document the single parameter, and it does: it specifies short keywords (2-4 chars), gives concrete examples like 报告/预约/空腹, and prohibits full question sentences. This directly compensates for 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 (体检 FAQ / health-check FAQ) and clarifies the anonymous-access scope. It's clear what the tool returns, though it never names a sibling (e.g. knowledge_get or help) to differentiate when this FAQ lookup is preferable.

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?

Explicitly gives both branches: no query lists all questions, a query filters. It also warns against full question sentences. Clear context for calling, but offers no exclusion against the sibling knowledge/help tools.

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