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 without the description's help. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that — that it returns a feasibility score plus recommendations — which is useful given there is no output schema, but nothing about limits, assumptions, or how the score is derived.

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?

Front-loaded label followed by clearly delimited USE WHEN / ALIASES / RETURNS blocks, so an agent can skim to the trigger. The alias list is long and eats space, but each block is labeled and nothing is buried in prose.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool this covers trigger, input domain and a rough return value, which is close to sufficient. The return description ('feasibility score and suggestions') is thin and, with no output schema, leaves the agent guessing at the shape and scale of the score.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description ('研究主题/题目') already covers it at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no extra semantics about how to phrase or scope the topic input, which is the baseline-3 outcome for a fully described schema.

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 title and opening phrase name a specific check ('Topic feasibility check'), and the USE WHEN clause pins it to 'is this topic doable with their time, sample and resources', which separates it from neighbors like topic_novelty or topic_gaps. It stops short of naming a sibling to route away from, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicit trigger condition is given ('USE WHEN: the user asks whether a topic is doable...'), reinforced by a list of user phrasings/aliases that map real queries onto this tool. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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