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 elsewhere. The description adds only "RETURNS: 重合度与相似文献", with no disclosure of corpus size, text length limits, matching thresholds, or latency. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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 format is compact and front-loads the EN/ZH name ahead of the routing keyword. The ALIASES block is keyword-heavy but serves retrieval, and no sentence 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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient, but the "RETURNS" line does not describe the shape of the result and the source of the comparison corpus (the user's own prior papers) is left unexplained. That ambiguity matters for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (text, top_n). The description adds no meaning about what top_n bounds or what form the overlap score takes, 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?

"Text overlap self-check" plus the USE WHEN clause states a specific resource (a passage vs. the user's own prior papers) and a specific operation (self-plagiarism comparison), which separates it from literature_search_pmc, pubmed_search, and citation_verify. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 a concrete triggering context: comparing a passage against the user's own previously published work. No when-not conditions or explicit alternatives are given, and the description never says whether the user's prior papers must already be indexed/uploaded for the check to work.

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