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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: per-call cost (0.011 USDC), pagination behavior ("Additional pages require separate requests"), and explicit limits (no independent attestation of entity identity, freshness, completeness, ownership, or safety). The only gap is that it doesn't describe permissions/rate limits beyond price.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a run-on sequence of mixed Chinese/English disclaimers with redundancy ("No completeness or safety guarantee" restates the earlier completeness clause). Most sentences carry information, but the structure is not economical.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque argument wrapper, the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: cost, prerequisite call chain, pagination, and the limits of what the returned record attests. It is close to complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The single parameter is an opaque free-form object with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no help. The description partially compensates by naming the required record_id and its provenance, and by redirecting to get_cn_data_tool_schema("v3_app_detail") for the full argument contract, but it does not enumerate the actual argument keys.

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?

"查询单个 APP 详情" gives a specific verb+resource (single APP detail) and is distinguished from the sibling cn_data_v3_app_list, which is explicitly named as the source of record_id. It stops short of a 5 because the purpose sentence is terse and the rest of the text is disclaimer rather than further scoping.

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?

It states the prerequisite directly: record_id must come from cn_data_v3_app_list and "acquiring that list is a separate call," which tells the agent the correct call ordering. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it falls short of 5.

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