run_model_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral context such as per-item result symbols (✅/⚠️/❌/ℹ️), automatic missing-data marking, and second-level response time, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention permissions or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded with purpose and check scope, then moves to usage modes and a fallback. It is dense but well-organized; the parenthetical enumerations of check types and status symbols are informative rather than wasteful.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining what is checked, how to supply inputs, and what result categories look like. It remains somewhat incomplete on side-effect/permission behavior and exact return structure beyond status symbols, but is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the two mutually exclusive usage modes (p_id+stage vs reports), that reports may be a subset, and that missing reports are auto-flagged.

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 states a specific verb and resource: performing cross-check validation on financial reports across six segments and 73 items. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming fast_calc_reports as the tool to generate reports first, so an agent can tell it apart from generation or delivery tools.

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 explicit alternatives: pass p_id (+stage) to locate a project, or pass a reports object directly, and notes the fallback to fast_calc_reports when no platform project number exists. It also states the use case ('交付前自检或向用户展示报表质量用'), leaving little to inference.

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