read_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('读出') and discloses that it returns authoritative handwritten documentation containing pitfalls, and that it takes precedence over other tools. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety or permissions, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: first states what it reads, second explains its value and contents, third gives usage conditions and precedence. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description supplies purpose, content, usage triggers, and precedence, which is complete for a read-only guide tool with one optional parameter.

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%, and the schema itself documents the single optional 'section' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional syntax or format details for the parameter, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (读出/read out) and three specific resources (public._guide, public._catalog, public._data_issues). It distinguishes itself from sibling metadata tools by declaring itself the authoritative handwritten source and specifying it should be consulted first for MICS, cross-dataset, and join work.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it (MICS data, cross-dataset/cross-country comparisons, joining multiple tables) and instructs to call it first. It also establishes precedence over other tools' inferential descriptions. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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