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 value beyond that with "RETURNS: 逐段差异与改进评估", disclosing that the output is a paragraph-level diff plus an improvement assessment, which is not captured by any annotation or output schema.

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?

The pipe-delimited USE WHEN / ALIASES / RETURNS layout is front-loaded and scannable, with the core action stated first. The alias list is dense but each entry earns its place by improving trigger matching.

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, read-only analysis tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger, and return content adequately. The only gap is the absence of any note on input size limits or expected text granularity for a diff operation.

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%, with both before_text and after_text documented, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only implies the two-input shape via "before and after revision" and adds no format, length, or ordering detail beyond it, 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 definition pairs a specific verb and resource ("Compare two manuscript versions") with a precise scope ("before and after revision of the same passage"), which distinguishes it from siblings like literature_compare or academic_polish. The bilingual title and aliases reinforce the identification without ambiguity.

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?

The "USE WHEN" clause gives an explicit triggering condition: the user wants to know what changed between a before and after revision of the same passage. The "same passage" constraint implicitly excludes cross-document comparisons, but no alternative tool is ever named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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