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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and that keyword searches title/content, but says nothing about ordering, pagination semantics beyond the schema, or permissions. For a low-risk read operation this is adequate, 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed by parameter behavior, with no filler. The '快工场 ·' prefix is minor branding overhead but harmless.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (title, content, source), which compensates well. With params fully covered by the schema and a simple read-only scope, the definition is nearly complete, missing only ordering/pagination details.

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 coverage is 100% so page_size is already documented. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that keyword performs fuzzy matching against both title and content, while the schema merely says '关键词(可空)'.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (文案库) and even enumerates the returned fields (标题+内容+来源), so the agent knows exactly what this tool surfaces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling save_copywriting or the other list_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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: retrieve saved copywriting from the library. The keyword behavior is explained, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like list_my_works or list_materials, leaving the agent to infer context.

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