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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that expired or revoked lists return an empty sections array (pointing to expired/revoked fields) and that track_url is audition/temporary only (see audioNotice). Auth requirements and rate limits are not covered, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Content is well front-loaded and labelled (何时用 / 返回), but the full bilingual duplication states every fact twice, so each sentence does not fully earn its tokens. The structure itself is clean; the redundancy is what holds it back.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the return shape (full list, empty sections on expired/revoked) plus the track_url caveat. Combined with a single required parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 single code parameter is documented in the schema as the code returned by km_create_result_set. The description only repeats 'by its code' without adding format, validation, or error semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: reads back a published pick list by its code, and enumerates what the payload contains (sections, tracks, per-track status). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like km_search or km_similar_by_track, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 '何时用 / When' line gives concrete triggers: continuing to add/remove/modify on an existing list, or confirming whether listed tracks are still in the catalog. Clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for retrieving lists another way.

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