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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data is refreshed monthly, it is a statistic of listed asking prices rather than an appraisal, and it carries no investment implication.

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?

Front-loads what the data is, then the use case, then the parameter hint, then the caveat — a sensible order with no filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but every clause carries information.

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 output schema, the description compensates by stating the return shape (中间价和区间, grouped by the listed attributes), so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the monthly-update note and the non-appraisal caveat, it is nearly complete for a single-optional-parameter read tool.

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 schema already documents 'group' as a keyword with examples. The description reinforces this with additional example values (手镯、玉牌、青花、观音), which helps an agent pick a valid keyword but adds only modest meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (price reference for 御府官网在售作品) and the exact dimensions it aggregates by (器型、重量、籽料/山料、颜色、皮色、题材). The line '适合回答"和田玉手镯/玉牌/挂件大概多少钱"' makes the intended question type unmistakable and separates it from product-lookup siblings.

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 a clear when-to-use trigger (rough price questions about categories of jade) and explicit exclusions ('不是估价，也不代表升值'), which prevents misuse as an appraisal tool. It does not name a sibling alternative for single-item pricing, so it falls short of a 5.

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