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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains it may overwrite existing records, verifies official URLs before saving, calculates the ratio internally, and uses evidence_text only for hashing without storing it. These are useful behavioral details not conveyed by annotations alone.

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 a dense single paragraph with no filler; every sentence adds an important instruction or constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then provides critical behavioral details.

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 tool with nested objects and 6 required parameters, the description covers many edge cases: overwriting behavior, ratio calculation, comparability handling, evidence_text handling, and input restrictions. It is fairly comprehensive, though it does not describe every field in detail.

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 description clarifies semantics for comparability, applications_count, and evidence_text, but does not address other parameters like program, round, or source fields. Given the schema description coverage is 0%, it partially compensates but not fully for all 7 parameters.

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 saves official application and selection counts for a given recruitment round to D1 with source and calculation basis. It uses a specific verb (保存) and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_official_selection_statistics (retrieval) and estimate_program_selection_outlook (estimation).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to avoid certain actions: do not input ratios, do not guess applications_count when only a selected list exists, and set comparability to not_confirmed/not_comparable when the same round/scope cannot be confirmed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the instructions make usage context clear.

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