list_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the basic action. It does not say the tool is read-only, does it mention network fetching behavior, rate limits, failure modes on unreachable URLs, or how the fetched report relates to caching/session state. For a no-annotation tool this is a notable 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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the returned artifact. Efficient, though perhaps under-specified rather than truly concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is usage routing versus siblings and any behavioral profile, so completeness is only adequate for this simple fetch tool.

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 both parameters (source formats, fetcher reserved note). The description adds only the 'Chinese annual report' scope, which is marginal 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 (Fetch), a specific resource (a Chinese annual report), and a specific return (its 目录 outline). An agent can tell this returns a table of contents rather than a section body. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling section/extraction tools like get_section or extract_section, leaving the boundary unstated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings (get_section, extract_section, search_reports, get_filing). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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