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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a non-destructive check but says nothing about what the result looks like (flagged terms vs. pass/fail verdict), whether detection is per-segment, or any limits beyond the schema's maxItems. For a no-annotation tool this is a notable 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?

Two short sentences with the capability stated first and the usage condition second; nothing is redundant. The 快工场 prefix is mild branding overhead but does not impede comprehension.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only place a caller could learn what comes back — and it does not say. Given the tool's simplicity and fully documented single parameter it is minimally viable, but the return-value semantics are missing.

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% and the single required parameter `texts` is documented in the schema itself (要检测的文案, 可多段). The description adds no syntax, format, or batching detail beyond the schema, 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 names a specific verb+resource (风险词检测 / risk-word detection) and further scopes it as 发布前合规自检, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but no sibling in the list performs compliance/risk-word checking, so the ambiguity risk is low.

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?

It gives two concrete trigger conditions: when the user's copy is about to be published externally, or when the user asks whether something is 违规/敏感词. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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