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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose several useful facts: the returned fields (first-seen time, source, flag), the default flagged-only filtering, and the cost of 1 credit. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only (only implied by "radar"/"查"), about authentication or rate limits, or about ordering and pagination of the list mode.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with identity and sources, then the mode switch, then the credit cost; nothing is padded. It is dense to the point of terseness but every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers what comes back at a high level and how the two modes differ. Gaps remain: what a "flag" actually signifies, how results are ordered in list mode, and any limit or pagination guidance, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, so two of three parameters are already documented in the schema (term is case-insensitive exact lookup, flagged_only is the list-mode filter). The description largely restates those two and adds no syntax or format detail, and it never mentions limit at all, which the schema leaves undescribed beyond its default and maximum.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pair: it retrieves newly captured meme terms from a monitoring layer and enumerates the concrete sources (KYM, news, TikTok official chart, Trends, Reddit). That is far more informative than the bare name meme_radar. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as trends_rising or site_radar_latest, which look adjacent.

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 sentence "带 term 查单条，不带则列近期（默认仅 flagged）" tells the agent exactly which mode it gets depending on whether term is supplied, plus the default filtering behavior. It gives clear context for use but names no alternative tool or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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