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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it reads the caller member's own case and returns status, quoted_cents, and requirements with citations; it does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loads the core action and return fields. The English and Chinese sentences duplicate the same information, which is redundant but still structurally clear.

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?

With no output schema and only one input parameter, the description does a good job of naming the key return fields and access scope. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but those are minor for this simple read-only lookup.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single compliance_case_id parameter. It adds meaningful scope by saying the ID belongs to the caller member's compliance case, but it does not explain the ID format or provenance beyond that.

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/resource (get compliance check) and clarifies that it reads a single compliance case by compliance_case_id for the caller member. This distinguishes it from list_compliance_checks implicitly, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 phrase '按 compliance_case_id' implies the tool should be used when a specific case ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_compliance_checks or request_compliance_check. Usage is therefore inferable but not fully guided.

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