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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: login required, personal data must only be returned to the owner and never relayed to third parties or written into external text, sensitive ID fields are not stored here, and isFile=true rows expose only filenames. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections for login, usage timing, tool chain, and caveats. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what is returned: all stored answers in the reuse layer, file-only filenames, absence of sensitive IDs, and privacy constraints. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. It does add useful semantics about the returned content and file-row behavior, which satisfies the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the current user's own stored answers from the cross-form reuse layer. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the update/delete tools in the combo chain and explicitly excluding homepage/company profile data.

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?

Gives explicit '何时用' trigger conditions with concrete example user questions. It names update_my_signup_profile and forget_my_signup_answers as the modification/deletion alternatives, and clarifies that this layer is not profile or company data.

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