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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral context: tone guidance ('先给价值、不吓唬' – lead with value, don't scare) and an integrity constraint ('未观察项不虚构' – never fabricate unobserved items). These go beyond the basic purpose and genuinely shape agent expectations. It doesn't address side effects or auth, but for a pure generation tool these are largely moot, so the disclosed traits justify a 4.

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 description is two dense sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, and tone, length, and the non-fabrication constraint are packed efficiently into the tail. It earns its length, though it's not maximally compact since it carries a quote/title that adds a little cultural flavor without extra instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally and need no description. The description covers product, length, tone, and integrity, which is reasonable for a 2-parameter tool. The main gap is operational context: no guidance on sequencing relative to siblings or what a prepared 'signals' input should look like, leaving completeness slightly short of what an agent navigating three related tools needs.

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 description coverage is 100% – both 'competitor' and 'signals' are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a modest cross-reference that the signals format matches score_tsi, which helps the agent prepare valid input, but it contributes no additional syntax or value semantics beyond that, keeping it at the baseline.

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 specific verb+resource: it generates a custom brief framework ('生成...定制简报框架') for a named publication and returns a 4-6 page structural skeleton with factual statements of observed signals. This clearly identifies what the tool produces and its scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings (get_signal_framework, score_tsi), though the format reference to score_tsi hints at the relationship, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The description never tells the agent that signals must be gathered/scored first (e.g., via score_tsi) or how this tool relates to get_signal_framework. The '格式同 score_tsi' note implies a prerequisite but leaves it implicit; an agent gets no explicit trigger conditions or sequencing.

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