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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the title 动作目录, so the read-only, non-mutating nature is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the content of each returned entry (including 必填参数 and 计费), which tells the agent this call is a cheap pre-flight lookup. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or result size for a catalog spanning ~100 actions.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The payload/content list comes first and the call-condition rule second, so both the what and the when are front-loaded before an agent would stop reading.

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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema catalog tool this is nearly complete: it says what is listed and what each entry holds, so an agent can decide whether to call it. Minor residual gap is that it does not say how many actions come back or how the '产出 / 计费' fields are formatted, which matters slightly given the ~100 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage, so there is nothing parameter-level for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (三域医研全部真算法动作的摘要), then enumerates exactly what each summary entry contains: id / 名称 / 适用场景 / 产出 / 必填参数 / 计费. It is clearly a catalog/discovery tool, distinguishable at a glance from the ~100 act_* sibling tools that perform actual analyses.

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?

Gives an explicit gating rule: call this only when you are unsure which action to use, and if the action id is already known, call that same-named tool directly. This is precisely the when/when-not/alternative structure an agent needs in front of a large sibling namespace.

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