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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful dependency — the sessionId must originate from a prior query/consult call — which is real context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about whether the session state is mutated, whether the session expires, or whether the sessionId is carried forward, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the dependency before listing parameters, and the whole text is two compact sentences. The parameter recap is largely redundant with the schema, costing a little density but not readability.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, and inputs adequately. It omits what the call returns (whether a new sessionId is issued, how the continued conversation is represented), which matters when no output schema exists to fill that 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (sessionId, question) are already documented in the schema, including the note that sessionId comes from query/consult. The description merely restates this and marks both as 必填, adding no syntax, format, or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific action (追问/follow-up) on a specific resource (an existing session) and names the two sibling tools whose sessionId it depends on. An agent can distinguish this from lawbotter_law_query and lawbotter_legal_consult without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says it is used on a sessionId returned by lawbotter_law_query or lawbotter_legal_consult, so the prerequisite and the trigger condition are clear. It does not state any exclusions (e.g. when a fresh query is preferable over a follow-up), so it stops short of a 5.

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