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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose useful traits beyond structure — content is bilingual (中英双语), is paste-ready text rather than a link, and is royalty-free with no attribution required. It says nothing about whether id and kind are mutually exclusive, whether both may be supplied together, or what the response shape/pagination is, which matters for a two-optional-param tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its categories, followed by a short licensing note. No filler or repetition; the only mild redundancy is that the category list echoes the kind parameter already spelled out in the schema.

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, no-required-param, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers what is returned (bilingual clause text) and the reuse terms. It leaves a real gap around lookup semantics — whether passing id returns a single clause, whether kind returns a list of all clauses in that category, and what happens when both are given.

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% — both id ('条款编号，如 lien-01') and kind ('po / lease / lien / insurance / rwa / audit；不填返回全部') are already documented in the schema, including the default-when-omitted behavior. The description's category list roughly mirrors the kind enum but adds no new meaning such as precedence between id and kind.

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 opening '取合同条款模板' gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the six template categories (采购订单/租赁/抵押担保/保险/RWA 入池/尽调), so an agent can immediately tell this is a static template-retrieval tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like cvin_permits or cvin_report, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: '可直接粘贴进合同' conveys the purpose context (drafting contract text) but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus sibling tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. The licensing sentence ('永久免费，复制与引用无需署名') is reuse guidance rather than invocation guidance.

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