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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the default sort order and, importantly, the caveat that results do not guarantee availability or market-optimality, plus the return fields (conditions, data date, detail links).

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads the filterable dimensions and return payload, the second covers the default ordering and the reliability caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does cover what is returned (条件、资料日期、详情链接) and the default ordering, which is helpful. It leaves pagination semantics (limit/offset), the free-text query parameter, and the nationwide toggle entirely unexplained, so an agent can call it but not tune it precisely.

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 only 50%, so the description has to carry weight: it maps the core filter concepts (province, operator, budget, general data, voice) to parameters and states the default sort order. It adds nothing about limit, offset, query, or nationwide, which are documented only partially or not at all in the schema, so it only partially compensates.

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 names a specific verb (筛选/filter) and resource (本站在售套餐) and lists the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings compare_plans or get_plan, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The disclaimer '不保证可办或全市场最优' concerns result reliability rather than usage context, so the agent gets no help deciding between this tool, compare_plans, and get_plan.

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