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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: login is required, the call is zero-LLM cost versus the LLM-costing get_chain_anchor, upstream/downstream is excluded, and source=inferred is a normal value. Strong, though the phrasing is compressed.

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?

Front-loaded with the 【需要登录】 prerequisite and organized with bracketed segments for scope, combination-chain handling, and routing. Every clause carries information, though the heavy jargon and mixed-language shorthand make it dense to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics — it names the returned fields (anchors, chain-position text, unplaced count) and the source field's normal value. Auth, cost, scope, and next-step routing are all present, leaving only minor gaps in exact return shape.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead spends its words on what the call returns and how to route around it.

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 concrete read of a specific resource set: the user's own plus published product anchors, chain-position original text, and unplaced count. It explicitly scopes out upstream/downstream and names the sibling tools it is not (get_chain_anchor, set_my_chain_position), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 when/when-not routing: placed=false routes to set_my_chain_position, empty results mean fill in data first, and get_chain_anchor should only be used when upstream/downstream is needed — explicitly not for reading titles. This is conditional guidance with named alternatives.

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