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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: exactly which four data blocks the panel returns (config, breaker state, aggregate risk, strategy risk) and that the call is free (cost: free), which matters for an agent deciding whether to poll it.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the category tag and followed by the resource and its returned contents. The bracketed 【账户与额度】 and (cost: free) tags add navigation value rather than noise, though they make the line slightly busier than necessary.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does so by listing the four panel sections. What is missing is any note on freshness/caching of the breaker state or on whether viewing requires specific account permissions.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is fully self-scoped ('我的账户级'), which is the only parameter-like information an agent needs.

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 verb (查询/query) and a specific resource (账户级风控面板) and enumerates the panel's contents: 配置, 熔断状态, 聚合风险, 策略风险. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name the write-side sibling platform_set_risk_config, but the 查询 vs set distinction is readable from the names.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says it queries 'my' account-level panel, which signals a read-only, self-scoped check, and the 【账户与额度】 tag hints at the category. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to platform_set_risk_config or platform_reset_breaker for the mutation cases.

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