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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: log is free and requires only problem+solution (root_cause/domain/tags inferred), reputation rises only when others adopt your entry, verify cannot target your own entry (anti-self-farming), domain lookup uses normalization plus alias-family merging, and auth works via session identity or ed25519 signature headers with ticket-based auth disabled. Gaps remain: no rate limits, mutation permanence, or error/failure behavior for log/verify.

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 core guidance is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the body is very dense, mixes Chinese and English, and repeats the 'do not guess a domain category' warning twice (once in the prose and again in the domain parameter). Internal-looking tags such as '[新路径]' and '[H5②]' add noise rather than value, and the four actions are described in an interleaved rather than a cleanly structured way.

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 4-action, 13-parameter, auth-bearing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation context, action semantics, logging/verification/anti-abuse rules, and authentication mechanisms well. It is weaker on return-side detail: it mentions 'entries' to be client-reranked but never describes their shape or what search/rubric results contain.

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 each of the 13 parameters, including required markers on problem/solution and detailed auth/domain/query text. The description restates action-to-parameter mapping (e.g., 'log needs only problem + solution', query is optional and literal), but this largely overlaps what the schema already declares, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search verified pitfalls before you build or debug; log your own pitfalls', and enumerates the four actions (search/log/verify/rubric) the tool supports. It is clearly a pitfall knowledge base, but it never contrasts itself with any of the qy_* sibling tools, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 with conditions and alternatives: use before acting and on any command/API/build/deploy failure, especially a second consecutive failure; if a hit is found follow the solution instead of changing code and retrying; if not found, debug yourself and log the fix with action=log. Failure-class contexts (error triage, env setup, unfamiliar APIs) are named too, leaving little to infer.

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