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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and transparently lists what the tool provides (positioning, tool list, auth model, docs entry), effectively implying a read-only informational call. It does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or whether authentication is required to invoke it, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loading what the tool is before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-param meta/onboarding tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content categories, and first-use timing. It could clarify authentication requirements or response format, but the essentials are present.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior to document; the empty schema is consistent. Baseline for no-param tools is 4, and the description adds no misleading parameter information.

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 the resource as SoloTeam platform meta-information and enumerates its contents (positioning, tool list, auth model, docs entry). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' and does not name a sibling, but the meta scope clearly differentiates it from the functional soloteam_* tools.

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 says to call this first during initial onboarding ('首次接入先调这个'), giving a clear context for use. It does not name when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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