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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioural burden: it does disclose that this is a free, foundational event stream usable incrementally, which tells the agent cost and freshness behaviour. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behaviour when limit is hit, or rate/retention characteristics, which matter for a stream-consumption 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is pulled, followed by the incremental cue and the cost note. No filler, though the trailing "事件流是地基层" is more marketing than actionable information.

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 read-only stream tool with no output schema, the description conveys what kinds of events arrive and that incremental fetching works, which covers the essentials. It stops short of describing the shape of a returned event or how limit interacts with the stream, leaving an agent to discover that empirically.

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 75%, with since, types and severity_min already documented in the schema; the description mainly reinforces `since` as the incremental cursor and gives example values that map onto `types`. The undocumented `limit` parameter gets no clarification from the description, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

"拉取结构化事件流" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the enumeration (失联、休眠、重复抵押、价格暴跌、跨地区流转) makes the domain of returned events concrete. It does not, however, distinguish this from neighbouring tools such as cvin_risk_signals or cvin_history, so an agent still has to guess which one to reach for.

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?

"支持 since 增量拉取" implies the intended pattern for incremental polling, which is a real usage cue. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites or limits, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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