query_curated_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys that this is a read-only query over a fixed curated list of 461 entries and lists content dimensions, but it does not mention data freshness, pagination behavior, or whether refresh_curated_list should be called first. The query verb implies no side effects, making it adequate but not rich.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core query target. Each sentence adds distinct information: what is queried, what it contains, and when to prefer it. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 is present, so return value details are already covered. The description sufficiently explains scope (461 curated maps), content (tags, chapters, annotations), and usage priority (highest quality for judging/recommending). It omits minor operational details such as ordering or refresh behavior, but the definition is still well-rounded.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by revealing that the `tag` parameter operates over 16 possible Chinese labels and that results include chapter info and human annotations, which clarifies what the keyword and tag filters act upon. This lifts it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb ('查询') and a concrete resource ('echocn 人工策展的 461 条高质量战役地图名单'), clearly distinguishing it from generic search/list tools. It further specifies content ('16 种中文标签、章节信息、人工标注') and adds a prioritization signal ('质量最高的数据源，应优先用于判定和推荐'), which reinforces its distinct role among siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: '应优先用于判定和推荐' (should be prioritized for judging and recommending), and labels it as the highest-quality data source. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use criteria, so it misses the full 5.

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