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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the sort order and the aliasing relationship, but says nothing about authentication, pagination behavior, or how results are returned for a user-scoped history read. That is useful added context but leaves real behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded before the equivalence note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately characterizes the return as a historical report list, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Missing details such as result fields or empty-history behavior are minor for a simple filtered list tool.

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%, with both userId and the limit/maximum already documented in the schema. The description only implies user scoping (某用户) and adds no syntax, default, or range detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (query a user's past tongue-diagnosis report list) plus the ordering (reverse chronological), and explicitly identifies its relationship to the sibling tool aicare_detect_history(kind="tongue"), so an agent can tell it apart from aicare_tongue_diagnose (new diagnosis) without opening schemas.

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?

It names the equivalent alternative call with the exact argument, which tells the agent when either form is interchangeable. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over aicare_detect or aicare_tongue_diagnose, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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