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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return keys (available_now, coverage, requires_trigger), implying a cheap read-only preflight. However it never explains what 'requires_trigger' means or what an agent should do when coverage is false, and gives no cost/auth/latency context.

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 gating instruction is front-loaded and the whole thing is two short sentences. The '[v1.6.0]' version tag and the full bilingual duplication are wasted tokens that carry no selection value.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return-value semantics — it names the three response fields but does not explain how to interpret them or what the agent should branch on. Adequate for a simple 2-param gate, but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'entity' and 'entity_id' including the either/or relationship. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 says to 'check coverage status' and names the returned fields (available_now, coverage, requires_trigger), which hints at a preflight/availability gate, but it never states what the availability is *of* — presumably intel coverage for an entity, which the agent must infer from the sibling names. It is identifiable but not a specific verb+resource statement.

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 '先查 / check first' framing plus 'Then chain/signal/brief' gives explicit sequencing: call this before the sibling intel tools. The sibling references are truncated ('chain/signal/brief' vs intel_chain/intel_signal/intel_brief), but mapping is obvious. No when-not guidance is given.

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