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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it scopes results to published/settled items and excludes pending-review material, and it names the return fields (definition, description, source). It omits pagination behavior, which limit/offset imply.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler: scope first, then filtering capability, then return contents, then the exclusion rule. Every clause adds information an agent needs and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return contents (definition, description, source) and the exclusion of unvetted material. The remaining gap is pagination/limit behavior for a 4-parameter tool, which is minor but not fully covered.

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 carries the explanatory burden. It covers the filtering param (name/keyword) and implicitly the 'kind' enum (products vs concepts), but says nothing about limit or offset semantics, leaving half the parameters documented only by their bare JSON types and bounds.

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 uses a specific verb '查询' (query) and names the two resources ('已公开产品' and '已沉淀概念'), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (get_news_detail, list_reports), but those clearly cover different resources, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase '不包含待复核资料' implicitly tells the agent this tool is for published, vetted content only, and '可按名称或关键词筛选' indicates how to narrow scope. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of siblings, nor any prerequisite guidance, so usage is only implied.

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