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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it declares 只读/无写入口 (equivalent to readOnlyHint), reports the corpus size (886), and specifies the returned fields (摘要/sourceUrl/lastChecked/validUntil). It stops short of noting pagination behaviour beyond limit or any auth/rate constraints, which is the only gap.

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?

Front-loaded with action, resource and return shape, then usage examples, then the follow-up call — a logical order with little waste. It is a single dense paragraph rather than scannable fragments, which slightly hurts readability but every clause conveys information.

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 and no annotations, so the description must cover returns and safety, which it does (field list, read-only, validUntil/lastChecked recency signals). Combined with the routing hint to get{id}, an agent has what it needs; only error/edge-case behaviour is unaddressed.

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 query, limit, id, path and action. The description only re-states the limit semantic ("可用 limit 调整", default 5 for find), which matches the schema without adding format or syntax guidance. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (检索/find), a concrete resource (中国官方信源), and quantifies scope (886 structured zh/en JSON-LD sources, top-5 entities). It also names the follow-up sibling operation (get{id}) for full text, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus the retrieval step. Sibling tools (qy_bid, qy_board, etc.) are unrelated domains, so no further differentiation is required.

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?

Explicitly enumerates applicable scenarios (办事指引 for foreigners in China/Shenzhen, 政策文件, 城市概况, 名单名录) and gives a concrete example question. It also states the when-to-use-next condition: "命中后若要正文，再用 get{id} 取全文", routing the agent to the correct follow-up call.

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