record_documentary_evidence

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose required fields, fact_group grouping, and the add_transaction follow-up. However, it does not state whether this creates a new record or updates an existing one, what permissions are needed, or how fact_group is validated.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, workflow condition second, parameter list last. The param list is dense but readable enough; a bullet structure would be slightly better for scanning.

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-value details need not be repeated. The description covers the main arguments and the most relevant sibling interaction. The missing case_id mention and the ambiguity around args being optional/nullable are the main gaps.

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?

The schema's args is an open object with 0% schema coverage, and the description compensates well by listing every expected args field and marking them as required. It still omits the top-level case_id parameter and does not clarify that args is nullable with a default in the schema.

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 action and object: “登记书证（第七部分，客观证据）”, so an agent knows this tool registers documentary evidence. It also differentiates its scope from add_transaction for financial-flow details, though it does not explicitly contrast with every sibling record_* tool.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: register documentary evidence first, then use add_transaction for each transfer/流水 item when present. That is a concrete routing condition to an alternative tool, though it does not discuss when to avoid this tool in favor of other record_* siblings.

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