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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (returns bilingual/alias mappings), the input type, and the per-call cost (¥0.05), which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior for unknown terms, output structure, or whether the operation is purely read-only beyond the implication of '返回'.

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 one short sentence containing purpose, input example, output type, and cost. Every clause earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what domain it covers, how to invoke it, what it returns, and its cost. The main gaps are usage routing and error behavior, but these are not critical for a low-complexity 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'q' parameter. It does add meaning by identifying q as a '术语' and providing a concrete example ('定时器'), but it stops short of specifying accepted formats, language support, or matching behavior. The compensation is partial but adequate for such a simple single-parameter tool.

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 states a specific resource ('工控术语') and operation ('对照映射'), and clearly explains the input-output pattern: input a term like 定时器 and receive Chinese/English and alias equivalents. It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from related siblings such as plc_annotate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a lookup use case ('输入术语...返回对照'), but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like plc_annotate. An agent must infer appropriate usage from the domain name alone.

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