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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: DeepSeek only processes content, does not fabricate data when signals are missing, and requires human verification before publication. These are valuable beyond what annotations provide (none provided). It could be improved by mentioning output format or length, but the key behavioral constraints are well covered.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides essential behavioral notes in a compact format. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, behavioral constraints, and human verification need. The only minor gap is not describing the output structure in detail, but the output schema likely covers that.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the signals parameter (should be verified, if empty only framework is generated) which aligns with the schema's description. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: generating a weekly brief draft on the theme of '出海 × AI' with three specific sections (本期焦点 + 本周信号 + 行动清单). It uses a specific verb ('draft') and resource ('weekly brief'), and the structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_outreach_email and translate.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when generating a weekly brief draft. It also gives guidance on input requirements (signals should be verified) and what happens if signals are not provided (only framework generated). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose.

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