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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that find is the default action and that publish requires a token ('publish 需要令牌'), which is real auth context. But it says nothing about the write side effects of publishing, whether published results are mutable/retractable, or what find returns when nothing matches — significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and captures the core purpose. But the body then restates the same content twice, once in English and again in Chinese, so a large fraction of the text is redundant. The '[新路径]' tag is unexplained noise that does not earn its place.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the two-mode split and a rough trigger condition. It never explains the relationships among task_type, source_type, execution, sources and payload, nor what find returns (no output schema exists to carry that). Adequate at the top level, incomplete at the depth this tool's surface area demands.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema (including which fields are find-only vs publish-only). The description only restates the find/publish split and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail 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+resource pair ('Find a reusable result', 'publish your own results') and separates its two modes (action=find vs action=publish) with defaults. The purpose is legible without opening the schema. However, it offers zero differentiation from siblings — notably qy_publish — so an agent cannot tell why it should use this tool's publish action over the standalone qy_publish tool.

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 condition for find: call it before implementing something expensive (dataset/script/conclusion/config) when task cost is high and others have likely done it. That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, and publish is given no usage condition beyond needing a token.

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