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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait: output comes from a deterministic algorithm engine rather than LLM generation, and that the return value is the report body. It does not discuss report length, formatting, or failure modes, so it is solid 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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with zero filler: scenario, return value, execution guarantee. It is telegraphic rather than prose and could be slightly clearer about the upstream dependency, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool whose only complex input is a nested object fully documented in the schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns, and the schema covers the chaining requirement. No output schema exists, but the return ('证据报告正文') is stated explicitly, leaving no major gap.

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 already explains the lang enum default and that result must be the verbatim object from act_decision_intake / act_decision_followup, including the observed error message. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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?

The description states a specific action and output: turn evidence cards into a readable evidence report body, labeled '证据报告叙述'. An agent can tell it is a report-generation step, though differentiation from the closely related act_decision_intake / act_decision_followup only appears in the input schema, not the description itself.

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 the scenario phrase '用户要把证据卡生成可读报告' (when the user wants evidence cards turned into a readable report), which is enough to trigger the tool. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternatives named in the description; the prerequisite (must follow intake/followup) is only visible in the schema.

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