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 a login requirement, the 401 response for unauthenticated calls, code=40003 with data.bindUrl for unbound cloud-market instances, and that the call is long-running with a suggested progress-reporting pattern. It stops short of describing pagination, rate limits, or failure modes during recommendation.

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 auth marker is front-loaded, followed by purpose, return contract, next-step routing, and finally the auth/error block in a separate paragraph. Every sentence carries information, though the inline '本体: plan → Action: recommend' tag is low-value noise.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return shape (selected_items with constraintId, plus planId) and the handoff to reservation.book. Auth and latency behavior are covered, but the ten undocumented input parameters leave a real gap for a tool this parameter-heavy.

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 description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only loosely names gender, marital status, budget, and health concerns (mainComplaint). age, welfareid, userContext, modification, reportHistory, and previousPackage receive no explanation at all, leaving over half the inputs opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource (recommend personal health-checkup items) and states its inputs (gender, marital status, budget, health concerns) and outputs (data.selected_items with constraintId, plus planId). It does not explicitly contrast with plan_quotation, the closest sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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 downstream guidance: 'planId 直接传给 reservation.book 预约，不要自己拼项目', and recommends calling progress.report at each stage for a long-running operation. It also states authentication prerequisites and the failure codes. What's missing is when to prefer plan_quotation or other siblings instead.

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