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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return semantics (per-day x per-tool breakdown, estimates, and an included todayPoints field), which is genuine behavioral context. It does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating call, nor any auth or rate-limit characteristics.

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 tool's identity and scope, followed by payload detail and a trigger clause; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with parenthetical qualifiers, but no waste and no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape (daily per-tool counts, points spent, todayPoints) and flags that point figures are estimates. The remaining gap is routing context versus get_point_balance, which an agent hovering between the two would benefit from.

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 days parameter is fully documented there (default 7, max 90). The description only echoes the window concept, adding no format or edge-case 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 states a specific verb and resource (查…用量 / query usage) and pins the scope (最近 N 天) plus the exact payload (按日 x 工具的调用次数与消耗点数). It is clearly distinguishable in content from balance-style siblings, but it never names an alternative such as get_point_balance, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

An explicit invocation trigger is given: 用户问"今天用了多少点/最近消耗"时调用, which tells the agent exactly what user phrasing should route here. There is no when-not guidance or pointer to the sibling (get_point_balance) that would handle a plain current-balance question.

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