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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check targets platform review risk and that rules vary by platform, but gives no detail on scoring thresholds, output interpretation, or limits — adequate but not rich.

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 states the resource and the condition checked. The four near-synonym labels (敏感检测/敏感词检测/违禁词检查/文案合规检查) are mildly redundant but serve recall, not bloat.

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 an output schema present, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope, which it does. Missing only marginal detail such as what the check returns or how platform-specific rules differ.

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 (text and the platform enum) are already fully documented in the schema; the description's '社媒文案' phrasing narrows the expected input domain but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: inspect a piece of social-media copy for sensitive/prohibited words and platform review risk. The only sibling, socialdatax_get_points_balance, is unrelated, so no differentiation burden exists.

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 implied by '检查一段社媒文案' — an agent can infer this is a pre-publish compliance check on social copy, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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