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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose what each mode returns (names vs. field keys, types, dropdown values). It doesn't discuss failure modes or empty-result behavior for q, but for a fixed read-only listing tool the coverage is strong.

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 tightly written sentences/sections with the ★ markup front-loading the workflow-critical two-step instruction. Every clause earns its place: category examples, both modes, and the call-to-run_calculator next step.

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 no output schema available, the description takes on the job of explaining return values for both modes and does so clearly. For a single-optional-parameter listing tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents q. The description nonetheless adds value by spelling out the semantic split between absent q (returns all 58) and present q (returns matched field keys/types/enums), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 verb (列出/lists) and resource (58 legal calculators) with concrete examples of categories, and explicitly distinguishes itself from run_calculator by naming the two-step workflow. An agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Explicitly describes when to use without q (all 58 names) vs with q (matching items with field keys/types/enums), and names the alternative tool (run_calculator) with the exact condition that chains to it. Nothing is left to inference.

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