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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that signals can be provided in list or dict form and that statuses must be observed/unobserved/unknown, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, or how validation errors are handled.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and then immediately providing the input format details. Both sentences earn their place, and the examples improve clarity without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the input format and general purpose, and an output schema exists. However, it references '七类信号' without enumerating those seven categories, leaving an agent to guess the exact expected signal IDs. It also does not point to get_signal_framework as a way to obtain the framework, which would make the tool fully callable.

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%, but the description adds significant value by specifying the exact accepted formats for signals (list[dict] or dict), showing concrete examples, and enumerating the allowed status values. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal '七类信号观测结果（见上）'.

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 clearly states a specific action ('算 TSI 转型活跃度指数并分级') and a clear resource ('一家企业'). It is easily distinguished from siblings such as generate_brief and get_signal_framework, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage when an enterprise's TSI score and grade are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or mention any prerequisites, such as first retrieving the signal framework. The context is clear but not fully articulated.

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