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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a key behavioral limit: the free tier performs only expression detection while full determination (explicit labeling + implicit metadata labeling) requires the cloud version. It says nothing about result format, confidence, or accuracy, so it is only partially transparent.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded and the version limitation clearly appended. No filler and no repetition of the name. Slightly dense due to the regulatory citation but every clause carries 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must fill the gap. It clarifies the free/cloud capability boundary, but never indicates what the detection result looks like (a verdict, a label suggestion, metadata?), leaving the agent guessing about the return value of a check 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?

Only one parameter, 'text', with 100% schema description coverage ('要判断的内容'). Per the rubric, a fully-covered schema sets the baseline at 3, and the description adds no syntax, format, or size guidance beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: detect AI-generated/synthetic expressions in content and flag labeling requirements under a named regulation. This is far more than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling check_content, so the agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 scopes what the free version will and won't do ('免费版只做表述检测；完整判定在云端版'), which implies when this tool is appropriate. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling check_content and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the version boundary.

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