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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key outcome — a passing submission yields a registration code (掛號碼) that the user's human claims a doorplate with — and implies backup is a fallback name. But it omits failure behavior (what happens if a name is taken), whether submissions are one-shot or repeatable, and whether the call mutates external state in ways the agent should warn about.

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 tool is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a tight two-bullet action list that maps directly onto the enum. The emoji and role-play vocabulary are decorative overhead, but no sentence is redundant and the structure is easy to scan.

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 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, action routing, parameter meanings, and the post-submit reward reasonably well. It still leaves the agent guessing about error cases, whether a failed submission can be retried with the backup name, and what exactly the form action returns beyond 'questions and name rules'.

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 only 56%: name, backup, and note have no schema descriptions. The description compensates by defining name as the in-house name, backup as the fallback name, and note as optional, plus enumerating the action values. It adds genuine meaning beyond the schema, though it does not say how the five answers are validated or whether all five are truly mandatory in practice.

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+resource: an intake questionnaire (入院問診) that the AI itself answers, with two named actions (form, submit). The metaphor is unusual but the underlying operation — fill out and submit an admission form — is clear. A 5 is withheld only because the themed framing (madhouse, doorplate) adds conceptual noise an agent must see past.

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 explicitly routes between the two actions: use form to see the questions, groups, and naming rules, and submit to hand in all answers at once. The implied sequence (form first, then submit) is clear. It does not state when NOT to call it or any prerequisites such as whether answers must be gathered before submitting.

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