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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the returned payload (body, eligibility requirements, attachment links, source link), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior for a missing id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and followed by the id requirement. No redundant or filler wording; every clause carries 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contents the agent needs and the id provenance. Only the failure mode for a nonexistent id is left unspecified, which is a minor gap given full annotation coverage.

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 schema itself documents 'id' as either a notice id or an 18-character 标探编号 obtained from search_notices. The description repeats the same information, adding no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('查看一条公告的详情') and enumerates exactly what the detail contains: body text, qualification requirements, attachment download links, and the original-source link. That clearly separates it from search_notices, which returns a list rather than a single notice.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the id comes from ('用 search_notices 返回的 id'), which establishes the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what to do if the id is invalid, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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