share_get_material_report_reasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and an output schema documents the returned codes and text, so the sentence adds essentially no behavioral context. Nothing is said about what happens with an unknown material_id, whether an item must exist or be visible to the caller, or about auth requirements.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the resource scope (举报资料) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

For a simple lookup with rich annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description covers the minimum needed to call it correctly. It still omits why an agent should call it (to feed a reason code into share_report_material) and any failure/edge-case 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (material_id, 平台对象 ID，正整数), so the schema fully documents it. The description contributes no extra meaning about the ID or its constraints, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb (获取) and a specific resource (举报资料的可用 reason code 与文案), so an agent knows exactly what the call returns. It also implicitly separates itself from share_get_comment_report_reasons by scoping to 资料 (material), though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup to run before share_report_material to obtain valid reason codes. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling comment variant.

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