check_eligibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: zero network calls, pure local query using filter.json and dead-image cache, implying a read-only, offline operation. This gives a strong sense of side effects, though edge-case behavior like cache updates isn't specified.

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?

The description is two succinct phrases, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a one-line scenario note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and usage context. It doesn't detail return format, but that is likely handled by the output schema. It omits failure modes, but overall the tool is simple enough.

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%, with both title and workshop_id already documented, including precedence and the requirement for at least one. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether an image can be downloaded, with a specific verb ('检查') and resource ('一张图'). It also mentions the underlying mechanism (local query), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_download_job that handle actual download jobs.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: pre-download checks and batch filtering. It also highlights zero network calls, which informs when it's appropriate (e.g., for lightweight filtering). It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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