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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no further spelling out. The description adds the composition of the returned answer, but it does not mention behavior on unknown slugs or any access constraints. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is an adequate but modest addition.

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?

The one-line summary is front-loaded and earns its place. The trailing Args block largely restates the schema's slug field and adds little, but it is short enough not to bloat the definition.

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 single-parameter read tool with a fully covered schema, complete annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies what is needed to call it correctly. Only failure/miss behavior for an invalid slug is left 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description's slug guidance (obtain via list_questions or search_answers) duplicates the schema's own parameter description rather than extending it. No format examples beyond what the schema already contains.

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 ('按 slug 取一条问答') and enumerates the payload ('正文 + 要点 + 标准条款依据 + 常见追问'), which tells an agent exactly what one returned record contains. This makes it clearly distinct from list_questions and search_answers, which only yield slugs.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: obtain the slug first via list_questions or search_answers. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. keyword lookup goes to search_answers), so routing is clear but not exclusive.

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