assess_settle_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by specifying what is assessed (strategic resources, luxury coverage, defensive terrain, etc.) and that it is 'beyond yields'. It does not describe performance or output format, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the six dimensions and then the workflow. Every part earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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?

Given a read-only assessment tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, dimensions, and usage sufficiently. The only missing piece is parameter explanation, which is partially addressed by the workflow context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the x and y parameters. It partially compensates by implying they are coordinates of a candidate point from get_settle_advisor, but it never states what coordinate system or format is expected, leaving a gap.

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 and resource: '六维深评' (six-dimensional deep assessment) of a settle location, and lists the six dimensions evaluated. It also distinguishes itself from get_settle_advisor by positioning itself as the evaluator of that tool's candidates.

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 explicitly says to call this for each candidate point returned by get_settle_advisor and then decide the final location, giving clear workflow context. It does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives like get_global_settle_advisor, so it falls short of a full 5.

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