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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'RETURNS: 证据报告正文', which is useful but thin; it says nothing about failure behavior, whether the report overwrites prior output, or that the operation is a pure transformation of prior tool output.

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 pipe-delimited header is front-loaded and scannable, but the ALIASES segment (four near-duplicate Chinese/English labels) consumes space without helping an agent decide when to call the tool. The remaining content is a single trigger line and a terse return note, so it is compact but low in information density.

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 output schema, the description should supply more: the return value is described only as 'report body'. It also does not disclose the workflow dependency on a prior act_decision_intake / act_decision_followup call, and its term 'evidence cards' does not match the schema's 'result object', leaving a terminology gap an agent must reconcile.

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 both parameters (lang and the nested result object) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and failure message. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented 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 states a clear action and output: turning evidence cards into a readable report narrative ('证据报告正文'). The verb/resource pair is specific enough to distinguish it from most sibling analysis tools, but it never names the closely related evidence_intake / evidence_followup tools it depends on, so an agent cannot tell the difference from the definition alone.

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?

'USE WHEN: turn evidence cards into a readable report' is a trigger phrase, but it largely restates the purpose rather than giving a genuine selection condition. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a result object from a prior decision tool), and no comparison to alternative narrative/report tools such as act_lit_digest or act_writing_one_click.

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