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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The term '查询' (query) and '状态' (status) strongly imply a read-only operation with no side effects, and the '不打扰' (do not disturb) behavior clarifies that it will not take actions when already claimed. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no writes or external effects, leaving a slight 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?

The description is concise yet comprehensive, covering purpose, invocation triggers, and conditional responses in two sentences. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given that no output schema is provided, the description effectively fills the gap by indicating the output (claimed=true/false) and the corresponding actions. It also includes the triggering context, making the tool's behavior fully understandable without needing to inspect other documentation.

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?

The only parameter, domain_id, is fully described in the schema (optional, leave empty in production, resolved from IAM). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not supplement the schema, but that is acceptable per the rubric.

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 clearly states the tool queries the voucher claim status and explains the context for when it should be used (first use, session start, or plugin capability inquiry). The specific action (查询) and target (领取状态) are unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: proactive check for new users, session starts, or capability questions. It also specifies the conditional behavior based on the result (prompt to claim if unclaimed, do not disturb if claimed), making the usage pattern fully clear.

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