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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, how results are ordered, or what the response looks like; it only gives a rough taxonomy of gap types.

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 description is short, but it duplicates the same content in Chinese and English and leads with a version tag rather than a clear purpose statement. The content earns some place, but the bilingual repetition and cryptic '≈list_signals' phrase reduce efficiency.

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 should do more to explain behavior and return values. It gives a partial content taxonomy but leaves an agent unable to confidently determine result shape, safety profile, or how this tool relates to its many siblings.

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 entity, window, and entity_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is complete.

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 indicates that the tool surfaces 'rule gaps' and lists categories such as landing, commercialization, and tech, so the general resource is inferable. However, '规则缺口（≈list_signals）' is cryptic jargon and does not clearly distinguish this tool from the many intel_* siblings or explain what a 'rule gap' actually is.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as intel_brief, intel_category, intel_chain, or the other intel_* tools. The '≈list_signals' note is ambiguous and does not establish a clear selection rule.

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