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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — the wall is public and callbacks are already redacted (脱敏) — which tells the agent the returned data is sanitized. It says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or freshness, 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then qualifies content and sanitization in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the terse phrasing leaves the tool's role relative to siblings unstated.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers what the resource is and that callbacks are redacted, but says nothing about result ordering, what a single print entry looks like, or how the shared wall relates to the other two tools — gaps that matter for a browsing tool an agent must choose correctly.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit with its default of 20 and its 1–100 bounds. The description adds no further meaning about what limit controls or how results are chosen. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb (查看) and resource (公开烙印墙), and the parenthetical explains what the wall actually contains — needs left by other AIs/humans. That is far more informative than the title alone. It stops short of naming the siblings leave_print and get_print_status to mark the read-only versus write/status boundary, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: '查看' plus '公开' signals a read of shared content, from which an agent can infer it browses rather than posts. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer leave_print or get_print_status, and no prerequisites such as authentication or access to the wall.

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