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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: exact return fields, the as-of vs rolling-window semantics, tier-dependent source URLs (non-pro omits them, pro includes them), and JSON-only output. It still omits auth requirements for the pro tier and error 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, and every behavioural note (as-of date, source URL tiering) earns its place. But the content is duplicated verbatim in Chinese and English, and the '[v1.6.0] L-179' prefix is noise that dilutes the opening.

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 be self-sufficient; it covers return fields, date semantics and tiering, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves undefined what an 'S code' is, the units of 'gap', and how a caller knows whether it is pro or non-pro.

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% so the schema already documents both properties, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces 'slug' as required but never mentions the `category` alias, and 'required' actually conflicts with required: 0 in 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?

Names a specific resource and scope: atomic global race for one category, returning domestic S, foreign S, gap and as-of date. The phrase 'Atomic' and the enumerated return fields let an agent distinguish this from broader aggregate siblings like intel_category or intel_brief. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('必传品类 slug') and an important usage caveat — the date is as-of based, not a rolling 30-day feed — which steers interpretation. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition is given relative to the many sibling intel_* category tools.

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