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

未提供 annotations，描述需承担行为说明责任。它补充了返回字段（标题/主题/链接）和内容用途，但未说明鉴权、分页、排序或速率限制等行为特征。

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?

单句直述，先说明列出什么、再说明返回内容与用途，信息前置且无冗余。

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?

对于仅 2 个参数、无输出 schema 的只读列表工具，描述已说明返回字段和发现文章的用途。虽未提及分页等行为，但 limit 参数已在 schema 中覆盖，整体足够调用。

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?

输入 schema 覆盖率 100%，limit 和 topic 均已有描述，基线为 3。描述本身未对这两个参数补充额外语义或格式说明。

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?

明确给出了动词“列出”和资源“中国硬科技供应链研究文章清单”，并说明返回标题/主题/链接。与同级工具 read_article 形成列表与详读的隐含区分，但未直接点明同级工具。

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?

通过“供 Agent 发现可引用的深度内容”给出了使用场景，但未说明何时应改用 read_article 等替代工具，也没有排除条件。属于隐含用法指引。

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