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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the three pieces of state returned (trust, last PING, capability notification), which tells the agent what the tool reveals, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor discusses permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the three returned aspects with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical (trust) is the only gloss on terminology and the sentence carries no routing information.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so by naming the three status facets. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, with the only real gap being how those facets are represented in the response.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that print_id is the id returned by leave_print. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource (查询烙印的验证状态) and enumerates what is returned: trust status, last PING result, and capability-online notification. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its siblings browse_prints or leave_print, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 guidance, no when-not, and no mention of alternatives. The only usage hint comes from the input schema, which notes print_id is the id returned by leave_print, implying a post-creation check sequence, but the description itself provides none of this.

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