data_sovereignty_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '查询' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, does not trigger a new audit, or whether the result is a cached summary. It adds content context but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the report type and key content categories in a compact parenthetical. There is no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lists the summary categories, which likely map to return fields, but it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON object vs. text), nor clarify side effects or whether a new audit is triggered. These gaps are not critical, but they leave some ambiguity.

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 single `date` parameter is fully described in the schema (today/yesterday/YYYY-MM-DD, default today), giving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('查询') and a precise resource ('数据主权审计报告摘要'), and enumerates the expected content (云端调用/本地执行/数据流出/敏感本地处理率). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit/report tools like run_audit or audit_trail by its unique data-sovereignty scope.

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 implied: it retrieves a data sovereignty audit summary for a given date. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, no prerequisites mentioned, and no alternatives or exclusions stated.

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