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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are returned in reverse chronological order and the operation is free ('免费'), which is valuable for cost-sensitive planning.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The core query action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the ordering detail and intended use case.

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 read-only history query with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, in what order, and that it is free. It could be improved by noting how it differs from aicare_tongue_history or clarifying pagination behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so kind, userId, and limit are already well documented in the schema. The description only implies that kind selects a detection category and userId identifies the user, which does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('历史报告') with scope ('某用户某一类检测') and ordering ('按时间倒序'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as aicare_tongue_history, which also returns detection history, leaving some ambiguity about when this generic-kind tool is preferred.

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 phrase '用于回看或前后对比' gives a clear intended context for using the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but it provides enough usage direction for an agent to know this is a historical review endpoint.

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