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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the categories of content returned, which matters since there is no output schema. But it says nothing about read-only nature, source/authority, freshness, or limits of coverage, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the returned content, the second immediately grounds it in example user questions. No filler, no redundancy with the schema field.

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 single-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description adequately communicates scope and return categories, so an agent can judge relevance without opening anything else. It is only slightly thin on authority/source and boundary against neighbors like get_law_article.

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%: the single 'q' parameter already documents that full names, abbreviations, and colloquialisms (跑分) are accepted, and the description repeats rather than extends that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new input semantics.

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 names a specific resource (罪名/criminal charges) and enumerates the four content types it returns: constitutive elements, sentencing tiers, filing-amount thresholds, and common Q&A. That is far more specific than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_law_article, search_law, or kss_lookup that also cover legal content, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause '用于「盗窃罪判几年」「偷 3000 够不够立案」「帮信罪怎么构成」这类问题' gives concrete triggering question shapes, which is genuine when-to-use context. It offers no explicit exclusions or alternative tools for adjacent needs (e.g. article text vs. charge elements), so it is not a full 5.

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