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

没有 annotations，描述需要承担完整行为披露责任。它只说明工具的意图，未披露返回内容、输出格式、副作用、权限要求或前置条件，代理无法判断调用后具体会发生什么。

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?

单句描述并用冒号分隔主题和解释，没有冗余词句，结构高效紧凑。"EVP" 未展开以及缺少输出说明稍有减分，但整体表达直接。

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?

工具仅有 2 个参数、无输出 schema、无 annotations，描述需要提供调用后的返回值或结果形态等上下文。当前只有一句意图陈述，缺少输出契约、使用环境、权限等关键信息，完整性不足。

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?

输入 schema 对 work_id 和 event_id 的覆盖率为 100%，因此基线为 3。描述中的 '意外' 间接对应 event_id，'designed_by=NONE' 暗示事件属性，但没有在 schema 之外补充参数格式、取值方式或约束。

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?

描述明确指向一个具体操作：获取'反 EVP 审计证据包'，并说明其核心含义是证明某意外未被预设（designed_by=NONE），与工具名 get_emergence_proof 对应。但未解释 'EVP' 缩写，也未与 redline_audit 等审计类工具明确区分，因此未达到 5。

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?

描述没有提供任何'何时使用、何时不用、备选工具'的指引。虽然 '审计证据包' 暗示与审计流程相关，但未说明与 redline_audit、rhythm_check 等工具的关系或触发条件，代理只能靠猜测。

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