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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the exact cost (0.011000 USDC per call), that additional pages require separate requests, that the record id is checked exactly but company association is not independently attested, and that there is no completeness or safety guarantee. These are meaningful operational and trust caveats beyond what the schema provides.

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 in the first sentence, but the English portion repeats disclaimers: 'No ... completeness ... certification' and 'No completeness or safety guarantee' overlap, and the cost/pagination notes are buried after lengthy boilerplate. It is information-dense but not tight.

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 output schema and a shallow input schema, the description covers the essential call context: prerequisite list call, per-call cost, pagination behavior, data-attestation limits, and a pointer to the schema helper. It stops short of describing what fields the case-filing detail returns, but no output schema exists to enforce that.

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 0% and the single parameter is a generic nested 'arguments' object with no documented properties. The description compensates by naming record_id and its source, and by directing the agent to get_cn_data_tool_schema for argument matching, but it does not enumerate the full expected fields.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: query details of a single case-filing record (查询单条立案信息详情). It distinguishes itself from the list sibling by requiring a record_id from cn_data_v3_cases_info_list, though it does not differentiate from other detail siblings such as standard_detail or court_notice_detail.

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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: record_id must come from cn_data_v3_cases_info_list, and acquiring that list is explicitly a separate call. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative detail tools, but the context for correct invocation is clear.

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