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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver: it discloses the returned evidence set and adds a useful negative constraint ('不给评分、不给评议' — no scoring, no commentary), implying a read-only, evidence-only lookup. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, which keeps it below 5.

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 scoping and usage trigger are front-loaded, which is good, but the Chinese text is essentially a full restatement of the English text, roughly doubling length without adding information. The parameter recap in the description also duplicates the schema already shown below.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value — and it does, naming diff, readings, tier, claim mark, and pitfall_refs. For a three-parameter lookup tool this covers what an agent needs, with only a minor gap around whether results are paginated or bounded.

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 schema already documents id, query, and endpoint. The description restates the same semantics (id required, query = pitfall-pool keywords space-separated, endpoint for multi-endpoint disambiguation) without adding format or syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: look up an unfamiliar third-party MCP in the QianYuan MCP pool, and it enumerates what comes back (raw diff, readings, tier, claim mark, pitfall_refs). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names the closest one (qy_mcp_report) to disambiguate.

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 gives an explicit trigger — 'Before you install or wire up a third-party MCP, look it up' — which tells the agent the moment this tool applies. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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