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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. '已按档裁剪' (trimmed by tier) hints at filtering/truncation but never says what the tier is, what gets cut, or how to avoid trimming — an agent cannot predict what it will receive. Nothing on auth, data freshness, or response shape.

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?

It is short, but the leading '[v1.6.0]' and 'L-153a 原子' tokens are internal noise that consume the front-loaded position where the actual purpose should be. The useful content ('海外/价差/切入点') arrives after the jargon.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the 'opportunity surface' returns; the parenthetical examples are too thin to tell an agent what fields to expect or how 'trimmed by tier' affects results. Zero required parameters also goes unexplained.

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 category as its alias) are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter guidance, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves the alias/slug relationship solely to 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 does state the output surface — category opportunity, listing overseas / price spread / entry points — which distinguishes it from sibling slices like intel_category_supply or intel_category_demand_pull. However, internal identifiers ('L-153a 原子') and 'already trimmed by tier' obscure what the tool actually does, and there is no clear verb or resource framing an agent can act on.

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?

It says 'opportunity slice only', which hints at the boundary with other intel_* slice tools, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing this over intel_category, intel_category_demand_pull, etc. is given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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