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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns severity level, suggestions, and a helpline, and it explicitly states '不是診斷' (not a diagnosis), a safety-relevant scope disclaimer. It stops short of describing validation behavior (e.g., what happens if answers is not exactly 5 items) or error outcomes.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the instrument name and scale, then the return contents and the disclaimer. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 computation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, output content, and a scope disclaimer. It leaves a few gaps: exact cardinality/validation rules for the answers array and what the returned severity categories are.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'answers' is characterized as 5 items on a 0–4 scale, and the suicide parameter is explained as an additional suicide-ideation item. It omits the suicide item's value range and whether it is optional, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: scoring the BSRS-5 mood thermometer, and specifies the instrument (5 items 0–4 plus a suicide-ideation extra item) so it is separable from the sibling GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scorers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the BSRS-5 instrument and its inputs, which lets an agent infer when this rather than score_gad7/score_phq9 applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusion guidance.

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