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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details beyond the schema: per-use cost (¥0.05) and expected input structure. However, it does not disclose output format details, potential limitations, or any safety/reversibility context, which would be valuable for a generation 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?

The description is tight and front-loaded: purpose, input, output, and price all appear in two short sentences, followed by a compact example. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter generation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to input, what to expect, and the cost. It could add more detail about how to structure multiple selling points or language expectations, but the provided example mitigates this gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that q should contain 'product and selling points' and provides a concrete example ('thermos cup, long-lasting insulation 12h, food-grade 316'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type, though it leaves the exact separator format ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's function: input product and selling points, receive conversion-oriented copy, with the domain 'e-commerce selling point copy'. This differentiates it from content tools like toutiao_killer_title or xhs_viral_note, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. A specific verb and resource are present.

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?

The description implies usage by showing an example input format ('保温杯 长效保温12h 食品级316'), but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like xianyu_listing_pro or toutiao_killer_title. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing instructions.

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