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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that publish needs a token and that find is the default action, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether publish creates or overwrites existing results, what data find returns, failure modes, rate limits, or side effects on the shared result store. This is a significant gap for a tool with both read and write behavior.

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 reasonably short and front-loads the core purpose in English, but it then repeats the same idea in Chinese with informal phrasing. Phrases like '省一次' appear multiple times, adding redundancy. It is not overly verbose, but the bilingual restatement and informal structure prevent it from being a model of conciseness.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and two distinct modes, the description needs to carry more context. It covers when to use and the token requirement, but it does not explain return values, how to interpret find results, the exact effect of publish on the shared store, or how to choose between qy_result and sibling qy_publish. The tool is therefore under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 modest value by explaining the action=find default and the token requirement for publish, but it does not go beyond what the schema already states for most parameters. It does not clarify parameter groupings or constraints beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool's resource (reusable results) and the two verbs: find before building from scratch and publish for future agents. It names the default action (find) and gives concrete example resource types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling qy_publish, which appears to overlap with the publish action, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides an explicit when-to-use condition: when the task is costly and likely already done by someone else, and instructs to call find before implementing something expensive from scratch. It also explains the two internal modes and that publish requires a token. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is clear enough.

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