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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it discloses the snapshot nature (not historical), the scope restriction (only current account's channels, not whole enterprise), the truncation limits (250 colleague, 100 waiting, with a hint when truncated), and the kfid dependency for queue-type classification. Nothing about the tool's operational behavior is left to inference.

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 long but every sentence carries operational value—there is no filler. It follows a logical flow: purpose → boundary → alternatives → scope/truncation limits → prerequisite. For a tool with this many caveats, the length is justified, though it could be tightened slightly without losing information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (snapshot vs. history distinction, truncation limits, prerequisite dependencies, sibling routing) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results. It even discloses the truncation hint behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the kfid parameter is already fully documented in the schema (including how to obtain it and its effect on queue_type classification). The description reinforces this in the prerequisite but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('获取...当前会话队列' - queries the current session queue of not-closed sessions under the current account's channels) and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by clarifying this is a live snapshot, not a historical query. The boundaries are explicit, making it unambiguous which tool is which.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (viewing pending/mine/colleague/AI states, selecting a session to read messages) and explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives: zhini_search_customers for full user scope and zhini_search_sessions for ended/closed/historical sessions. Also states the prerequisite of calling zhini_get_current_kefu when distinguishing mine/colleague sessions. This is textbook-level routing guidance.

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