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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It discloses only that the output is an atomic demand-pull slice and that public results omit chains, but it says nothing about permissions, data freshness, return shape, or other operational 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 text is short but cluttered with a version tag '[v1.6.0]', an internal code 'L-153a', and bilingual duplication. These fragments do not help an agent decide when or how to call the tool, so the structure is not meaningfully 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It notes the demand-pull scope and the public no-chains rule, but it does not explain what the returned signals/chains represent or what an agent should expect.

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 both slug and category are already documented as strings, with category noted as an alias of slug. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 largely restates the tool name with internal jargon: 'demand_pull slice only' and '只出需求倒逼段（signals/chains）'. It hints that the tool returns a demand-pull segment and excludes chains publicly, but it does not clearly state what resource is being queried or what the slice actually contains.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The fragment '公开无 chains' implies a public limitation, but there is no direction on alternatives such as intel_demand or intel_chain, nor any prerequisite context.

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