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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The one behavioral hint, '已按档裁剪' (pruned according to tier), is meaningful but unexplained — an agent cannot tell what tier means, whether data is filtered or truncated, whether the call is read-only, or how fresh the figures are. For an unannotated tool this is a substantial gap.

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 space is spent on version and code identifiers ('[v1.6.0] L-153a 原子') rather than on the scoping or routing information an agent needs. The genuinely useful clause ('supply slice only') arrives at the very end instead of being 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it does not say what the 'supply slice' returns, what 'whole units / parts schematic' means concretely, or how the tier-based pruning affects results. An agent can form only a rough guess about when and how to call it.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters ('Category slug' and 'Alias of slug'), including the alias relationship. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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 bilingual text does identify the resource as a category supply output ('只出品类供给' / 'supply slice only'), which distinguishes it from demand-oriented siblings such as intel_category_demand_pull. However, it never states a verb or the form of the operation, and the leading tokens '[v1.6.0] L-153a 原子' are internal identifiers that tell an agent nothing about what the tool does.

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?

'supply slice only' implies this is the supply-side counterpart to the demand tools, so the selection logic can be guessed. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. intel_category vs intel_category_demand_pull), and no hint about how it relates to intel_availability or intel_chain, leaving routing to inference.

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