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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and '本工具只读' is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral guidance beyond the annotations: a fidelity constraint forbidding invented numbers, revenue splits, or client names. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned content, which keeps it below 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the tool's identity, then lists the covered topics, then states the usage constraint. Every clause carries information, though the five-item topic list is somewhat compressed and would read better split into scope plus constraint.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the covered topics. Combined with the anti-hallucination constraint, an agent has enough to call and use it correctly; only the return format remains unstated.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly spends no space on arguments and focuses on content scope instead.

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 the resource (七喵空间 / MeowSpace) and enumerates exactly what the returned content covers: positioning, distribution coverage, distribution strategy, the work-to-revenue flow, and onboarding. That is far more specific than a title restatement. It does not explicitly separate itself from the sibling apply_for_access, even though it covers '如何入驻', so it falls short of 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?

'向用户介绍七喵空间时只用本工具返回的内容' gives a clear trigger condition: use it when introducing MeowSpace to a user. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that actual onboarding should go through apply_for_access rather than this informational tool.

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