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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost per call (¥0.05) and that it returns a structured outline. It doesn't mention side effects, data handling, or rate limits, but for a simple generative tool the disclosed cost and output type add meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with zero filler: the core function and example come first, followed by the cost. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

Given there's an output schema (not shown but flagged) and a single well-described parameter, the description covers the essentials: what it does, example input, and cost. It doesn't mention edge cases or failure modes, but for a deterministic outline generator with a simple interface, this is likely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly states the parameter 'q' is a theme/genre and provides a concrete example ('都市重生'), adding meaning that the bare string type in the schema lacks. This gives an agent the necessary clue to supply a valid input.

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 returns a chapter-by-chapter outline from a theme input, with an explicit example ('都市重生'). This verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like calc or diagnose, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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: if you need a novel outline from a genre/theme, use this tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, but given the sibling tools are all distinctly different domains, the implied context is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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