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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a guide and documentation link, but it does not mention whether this is a static payload, a network-looking operation, or whether any state is affected. For a zero-parameter getter this is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and subject, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 parameterless tool, the description is nearly complete: it names both the onboarding guide and the machine-readable documentation link. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the response shape could be helpful, but it is not strictly necessary for this simple use case.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already shows. The baseline of 4 is appropriate: with no parameters and 100% schema coverage, no parameter information 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 返回/returns, and names an exact resource: the 搜蚁智选 onboarding guide and machine-readable documentation link. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and is distinct from the sibling tools, which all concern estimation, requests, or asset listing.

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 description implies that this tool should be used when onboarding documentation for 搜蚁智选 is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusion cases. The guidance is therefore implied rather than spelled out.

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