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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb '返回' (returns) implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is some transparency, but it doesn't disclose permissions, data source, or any limitations. There is no contradiction since no annotations exist.

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 efficient sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and the second lists supported values. All information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool returns and the supported audit types, though it omits any context about when to choose different audit types, which is more of a usage-guidelines gap.

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 the audit_type parameter with its allowed values. The description adds context that the output includes both audit checklists and pre-shipment inspection type explanations, but it largely repeats the schema's options rather than adding deep semantic meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('返回' – returns) and resource (factory audit checklist and pre-shipment inspection type descriptions), and adds specificity by listing social/quality/supply chain safety categories. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, but the resource scope is distinct enough from aql_sampling_plan and supplier_evaluation_scorecard.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or when to select a specific audit type. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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