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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description focuses on domain behavior instead: it enumerates the returned fields and, crucially, explains that canOpen=false means the template lacks implementation and must not be recommended. That missingHandlers/canOpen semantics is exactly the kind of business rule annotations cannot express. It stops short of a perfect 5 only because it says nothing about auth or result size ordering.

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?

Four tight clauses, each with a distinct job: purpose, usage trigger, return shape, anti-pattern plus caveat. Purpose and the routing warning are front-loaded, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 present, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields (templateId/名称/说明/canOpen/missingHandlers/动作清单) and the interpretation of canOpen=false. Purpose, usage, returns, and caveats are all covered for a zero-parameter 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description explicitly confirms '参数：无', matching the empty schema and removing any doubt that a filter might exist. There is no additional parameter meaning to add.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (列出数字员工模板) and immediately scopes it as the catalog of *provisionable* templates, explicitly distinguishing it from list_my_staff which holds already-provisioned staff. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

States both when to use it ('想知道系统能开哪些岗位'、用户要开通新岗位时) and when not to ('别用它找已开好的岗位——那是 list_my_staff'), naming the alternative outright. This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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