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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that it returns 'standards and base figures' rather than computed amounts, which prevents misuse. It stops short of describing data coverage, currency/validity year, or return structure.

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 tight clauses: capability, example use cases, and the return-value caveat with handoff. Front-loads the resource definition and wastes nothing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return nature, which it does by stating it returns standards and bases rather than amounts. It could say more about the structure or scope of the returned data, but it is sufficient 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already fully documented, including the enum mapping. The description's mention of the three categories and provincial scope mirrors the schema's own fields without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('分省赔偿标准与法定基数') with its scope split into three named categories (traffic, injury, personal injury). It explicitly contrasts itself against run_calculator, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening its schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use examples ('安徽十级伤残赔多少', '江苏工伤死亡赔多少') and names the follow-up tool explicitly: to compute actual amounts, use run_calculator. This routes the agent correctly across a two-step workflow instead of leaving the boundary implicit.

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