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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: requires login, actually invokes an LLM (costs money), one call per item, serviceDomain=null is normal (not a failure), and category falls back to OTHER. These are critical for proper usage and are not derivable from the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false). No contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections (需要登录, 组合链, 口径) and front-loads the core purpose and the key 'does not persist' point. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description explains the return fields (category, tags, serviceDomain) and clarifies the meaning of serviceDomain=null and the OTHER fallback. It also covers cost, usage pattern, and the relationship to the write path. This is comprehensive for a non-persisting helper tool.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by advising that the description parameter should be written as specifically as possible for better accuracy ('写得越具体判得越准'), and reiterates that tagline may be empty. This goes slightly beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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's function: send product copy to machine judgment and receive category + tags + serviceDomain. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not persist or touch existing products, and references create_product/update_my_product as the real submission path. The verb and resource are specific.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: use for trial before publishing or for diagnosing against existing published products. It names the alternative tools (create_product/update_my_product) and describes the composition chain, including that there is no separate write endpoint. The '口径' section further clarifies expected behavior and pitfalls.

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