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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cost information (免费) and the ownership constraint for userId-less detections, but says nothing about the report's format or size.

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?

Three short sentences with the retrieval action front-loaded, followed by the special-case constraint and cost note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 simple read-only single-record fetch with full annotation coverage of the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (the detection report), when it is required, and its cost. Only minor detail about report contents is absent.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only confirms healthCheckId is the key without adding format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (取回) and resource (检测报告) scoped by healthCheckId, with a clear single-record scope that distinguishes it from the list-style sibling aicare_detect_history. Sibling differentiation is present but not named explicitly, so it falls short of a 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?

Gives one concrete when-to-use condition: unattributed detections lacking userId can only be retrieved with this tool. However, it never names the alternative (e.g., aicare_detect_history) or states the general case, leaving the choice mostly implicit.

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