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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the provenance signals attached to results (human verification, AI-text labeling, reader voting), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about volume, pagination, ordering, permissions, or what a returned post looks like.

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 compact sentence with the primary content type front-loaded and filters trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical is dense and would benefit from clearer separation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain what 'query' does and what results contain. It hints at result metadata and two filters but leaves the agent guessing on a third parameter and on result shape.

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 none of the three parameters are documented in the schema. The description loosely maps to two of them (topic filtering, human_only '只看像真人的') but gives no syntax, expected values, or interaction between query and topic, leaving the 'query' parameter entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (台灣真人使用心得), and the parenthetical content types (真人驗證、AI 文字標示、讀者投票) sharpen what the listing contains. It is distinguishable from get_taiwan_post (single post) and search_human_opinions (search), though it does not name siblings explicitly.

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 only says it can filter by topic and by human_only ('可篩主題與只看像真人的'), which restates the filters rather than saying when to choose this tool over check_ai_text, get_topic_opinions, or search_human_opinions. No when-not or alternative routing is given.

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