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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a hard cap ('first page only, at most 5 rows; no pagination input'), cost per call (0.011 USDC), and what the data does not prove (identity, completeness, safety, current ownership). It omits the return fields and any auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Eight sentences with substantial redundancy: 'does not independently attest entity identity or completeness' is restated by 'No completeness or safety guarantee,' and 'Additional pages require separate requests' repeats 'first page only.' The useful facts (company_id, 5-row cap, price) are buried among repeated disclaimers, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a nested/untyped argument object, the description covers limits, cost, prerequisites, and disclaimers, but never describes the returned row structure beyond 'at most 5 rows.' An agent still lacks the field-level picture of what comes back.

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 0% and the single parameter is an opaque pass-through 'arguments' object, so the description must compensate. It names the required input ('Jinghai company_id') and points to get_cn_data_tool_schema("v3_app_list"), but defers the actual parameter shape to another tool rather than documenting it here.

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 the resource ('Recorded mobile applications'), making clear this returns a company's app records, and the name plus context imply listing. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like cn_data_v3_app_detail (single app) or cn_data_v3_minapp_list, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('Requires the Jinghai company_id from cn_data_v3_company_detail') and a usage constraint ('Additional pages require separate requests'), which tells the agent how to invoke it correctly. However, it never says when to prefer this over app_detail or minapp_list, so no explicit alternative routing.

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