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

注释已声明readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true、destructiveHint=false，描述了只读安全属性。描述额外补充了返回内容（含结论与条文依据），但对具体返回格式、分页或限制等未提供更多行为细节，符合有注释时的较低要求。

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?

描述简洁，两句话加Args列表，无冗余，关键信息（检索对象、返回内容）前置，结构清晰高效。

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?

有输出模式，无需说明返回结构；参数简单且有描述。虽缺少使用场景指导，但整体对于搜索类工具已足够，符合复杂度要求。

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描述覆盖率为0%，描述通过Args部分对query和top_k提供了具体解释，包括query示例和top_k默认值，补偿了schema缺失，但未提供参数格式限制或更多语义，故给4分。

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?

描述明确说明'按关键词检索中国 AI 合规条目'，动词'检索'加资源'AI合规条目'，并说明返回内容（含结论与条文依据），与兄弟工具（filing_route、get_requirement等）功能差异明显，目的清晰且可区分。

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?

描述未提供任何使用时机或与替代工具的对比，未说明何时应使用此工具而非其他兄弟工具（如regulation_info、list_topics），也无线索表明其适用场景或排除条件。

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