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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation, that the facade enforces idempotency/window/no-self-bidding ('门面判据（幂等 · 窗口 · 不得自投）由门面裁决'), and that the tool only passes through readings. It also explains the auth behavior (auto-signed vs explicit auth). It doesn't describe failure modes or return values, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the action and lifecycle, then the route, then the required parameter, then auth details, then the facade note. Every sentence carries information. It is slightly long due to the bilingual repetition and the detailed auth example, but the structure is logical and scannable.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the route, the required parameter, the auth mechanism, and the lifecycle context. It doesn't describe the response shape or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema descriptions, this is nearly complete. The only notable gap is what the response contains (e.g., claim ID or status), which is not disclosed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that task_id is required and that auth is optional with a full example and canonical spec link. It also clarifies the auth semantics (session identity vs cross-session credential), which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Claim a published task (WRITE)', and immediately distinguishes it from the lifecycle siblings by naming the sequence qy_start and qy_deliver. It also states the exact route (POST /a2a/claim) and the required parameter (task_id), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from qy_bid, qy_publish, or qy_deliver.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: it is the first step to becoming a deliverer, and it names the next steps (qy_start, then qy_deliver). It also explains the credential context: after qy_register, the session identity auto-signs; across sessions, pass auth. This is clear when-to-use guidance with alternatives and sequencing.

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