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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what comes back (severity level, recommendation, crisis hotline) and adds a safety caveat that the output is not a diagnosis — meaningful behavioral context. It does not discuss input validation or failure modes, 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the instrument and its scoring structure, with the disclaimer last. Nothing is wasted, though the compression makes the parameter mapping slightly hard to parse at a glance.

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 pure computation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the input shape, the output contents, and the not-a-diagnosis caveat. Only item ordering and the optionality of the suicide field are left implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: '5 題 0–4 分' tells the agent that 'answers' is a five-item list scored 0–4, and '自殺意念附加題' identifies the optional 'suicide' parameter. It does not state item ordering or that 'suicide' is optional, so it falls just short of full coverage.

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 and resource (scoring the BSRS-5 mood thermometer) and specifies the instrument's structure: 5 items scored 0–4 plus a suicide-ideation add-on. The named instrument (BSRS-5) distinguishes it from siblings score_gad7 and score_phq9 without needing to reference them. The closing '不是診斷' sharpens scope.

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 the tool name and instrument: call it when you have BSRS-5 answers to score. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or direction to siblings (e.g., use score_phq9 for depression screening instead), so the agent must infer the routing.

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