policy_detail

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. '查看' clearly indicates a read-only lookup and '详情' indicates a detail-level response, but the description adds little beyond the tool name and does not mention URL validity, error behavior, or sourced data.

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 short sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description plus schema are sufficient for a correct invocation. It could benefit from naming a sibling or clarifying the expected URL source, but nothing essential is missing for the basic operation.

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 the url parameter. The description adds only the notion of a specific document ('某篇'), which is consistent with the required URL, but no additional format or source guidance.

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 clear verb ('查看' - view) and resource ('某篇政策文件详情' - details of a specific policy document), so an agent understands the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like policy_search or policy_collect, which prevents a 5.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving details of a specific policy document, likely after obtaining a URL. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over policy_search, policy_collect, or policy_stats, and offers no exclusions.

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