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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that querying does not incur extra credits, which is important cost behavior, but it does not clarify read-only semantics, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the cost behavior without any wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter query tool.

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 status query with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the returned information as status and output, and notes the no-extra-credit behavior. It could be stronger with explicit usage context, but it supplies what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

The only parameter, task_id, is fully described in the schema as '雇佣任务 ID', and the description merely restates that it queries by task_id. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb-resource pair: querying the status and output of a hire task by task_id. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as mycel_hire_agent and mycel_balance, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 after a hire task exists, since it queries task status and output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The note about no additional credit deduction gives some useful context but is not a full usage guideline.

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