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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (名称、地址、电话) and implicitly signals a read-only lookup. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what happens when no results are found, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loaded with the resource scope, followed by the return fields and concrete example queries. No sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 simple filtered lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies scope, return fields, and usage examples. Only the sibling overlap with kss_lookup and the empty-result behavior remain uncovered.

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%, so the schema already documents q, cat, city, and limit including the enum label mapping. The description's enumeration of categories duplicates the enum rather than adding new meaning, 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?

The description names a specific resource (全国司法资源) and enumerates the exact entity types covered (法院、检察院、看守所、监狱、司法鉴定机构、公证处), which maps to the cat enum. It is clear what the tool does. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling kss_lookup, which likely overlaps on 看守所, leaving a real ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Two example queries (「XX 市看守所在哪」「XX 区法院地址电话」) imply the intended use context well. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from kss_lookup or the other *_lookup siblings.

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