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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description's '本工具只读' simply restates that. The genuinely additive content is the content-fidelity rule (do not invent figures/ratios/client names), which is a behavioral constraint the annotations do not convey.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the resource and the list of covered topics, the second carries the usage constraint. No padding, though the enumerated topic list is slightly dense.

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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what topics the response covers and how to use it, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Return formatting is unspecified but not essential here.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description adds nothing that could mislead about inputs.

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 resource (七喵空间/MeowSpace) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: positioning, distribution coverage, distribution strategy, works-to-revenue flow, and activation steps. That is far more informative than a tautological 'about' blurb, though it never names the siblings to differentiate itself 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?

It gives a clear usage context — use this tool when introducing MeowSpace to a user — and adds a hard constraint against supplementing numbers, revenue-share ratios, or client names not in the response. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to call it.

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