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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value here is the localization behavior: all official strings are rewritten to lang, and all_languages returns every language at once. That is genuine behavioral detail not present in the schema, where all_languages has no description at all. It stops short of describing behavior for an unknown id/kind, which is the remaining gap.

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-loaded with the action, and every clause carries information. The main inefficiency is that the Chinese and English sentences restate the same purpose, so roughly half the text is redundant to a bilingual reader, though the Chinese line does uniquely enumerate the field groups returned.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to carry the return shape, and the Chinese line does exactly that by naming the field groups included in the record. Combined with the localization rules, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 25%, but the description compensates well: it defines what lang actually does (localizes all official strings) and what all_languages=true returns, the two parameters the schema leaves bare. kind and id need little extra explanation since the enum is self-documenting and id already carries an example.

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 English sentence gives a specific verb plus resource ("Fetch the complete record for one entity"), and the Chinese line enumerates what "complete" means (attributes, effects, price, sources, resistance, drops, relations). It is clearly distinct from the sibling search/list tools, though it never names them to make the separation explicit.

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?

"在已知数据集与 ID 后" implies a prerequisite (you must already know kind and id), which quietly routes an agent to search_ffrs/list_dataset when it lacks an ID, but the guidance is only implied. There is no explicit when-not or named-alternative statement.

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