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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one real behavioral trait: non-Pro callers receive only teaser/locked content while full data requires an upper tier ('全是需壁垒'). That gating semantics is valuable and not inferable from the schema, but return format, partial-result behavior, and error modes are entirely unexplained.

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?

Short, but not concise in the useful sense: two internal identifiers (v1.6.0, L-153a), a bilingual restatement, and jargon ('壁垒') consume the whole budget while the actual purpose is never 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?

A no-annotation, no-output-schema tool in a crowded category family needs the description to explain what data is returned and how it differs from ~15 siblings. The one useful hint (tier gating) does not make up for the missing purpose and result information.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (slug and its alias category) are documented in the schema, including that category is an alias. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, but baseline 3 applies since 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 reduces to an internal code ('L-153a 原子：技术迁移层' / 'Atomic: tech_migration') plus a version tag, without a verb or statement of what the tool actually returns or does. An agent can guess it relates to technology-migration data for a category, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like intel_category_supply or intel_tech_dir.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many intel_category_* and intel_tech_* siblings. The only contextual phrase ('Non-pro: teaser/locked only') describes entitlement, not selection criteria.

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