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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses that no key is required ('免 key') and that the content is markdown original text. It does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive behavior, but these are strongly implied for a document retrieval tool.

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 one compact sentence plus a short fragment, front-loaded with the resource name and format. Every element — purpose, usage condition, content summary, and auth note — earns its place without repetition.

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 simple, zero-parameter document retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return format (markdown original text) and access requirement (no key). It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could state read-only behavior more explicitly.

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, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

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 identifies the resource as the platform's code of conduct and specifies its format (markdown original text). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the content is specific enough for an agent to know what it retrieves.

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 states '接入前必读' (required reading before access), giving a clear condition for use. It does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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