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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations, the description discloses consequential behavior: verification does not grant authorization and does not consume price-query quota, the generated instruction is valid for 10 minutes, and continuation requires matched and query_allowed. That is real operational context an agent could not infer from the annotations. Everything else about return values for the plain entitlement path is left implicit.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct decision rule, with the most consequential routing rule (use get_market_card instead) front-loaded. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

The branching logic and side-effect profile are well covered for a two-parameter tool, and no output schema exists that could offload the return description. However, what the plain entitlement lookup returns (which entitlement fields, what an unentitled result looks like) is never described, so an agent knows when to call it but not exactly what to expect back.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and largely does: connection_check is the verification instruction to pass when one is received, and its matched/query_allowed outcomes determine whether to resume querying; issue_for_client requires a connected account and yields a 10-minute instruction. It does not explain the expected string format of connection_check or what the enum client identifiers mean, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening clause '只查权益才单独调用此工具' identifies the resource (entitlement/rights status) and the calling mode (standalone check), and it immediately contrasts this with the sibling get_market_card. The purpose is clear enough to select the tool, though the description never plainly states what the default no-argument call returns, so it is a step short of a crisp verb+resource definition.

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?

Explicit routing rules are given: call this alone only to check entitlements, and if the user supplied a vehicle model and wants to continue, call get_market_card directly instead. It also names the trigger for each parameter path (a received verification instruction, or a user explicitly wanting to verify another agent) and the prerequisite for issue_for_client (a connected account). Alternatives and exclusions are both spelled out.

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