explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'why documents match/not match queries and scoring calculation process', which implies it's a read-only analysis tool. However, it doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any limitations (e.g., performance impact). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and structured with a title and parameter list, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified—it lacks context about the tool's domain or system, and the parameter descriptions are minimal. While not verbose, it misses opportunities to add necessary clarity without being 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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested query object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values in detail (e.g., what 'scoring calculation process' entails), the system context (e.g., Elasticsearch), or behavioral aspects like error handling. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 description explicitly lists and briefly describes all three parameters (index, id, query), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'index' is the index name, 'id' is the document ID, and 'query' is the query condition. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more detail on query format or constraints.

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 the tool '解释文档评分' (explains document scoring), which indicates its purpose is to analyze why documents match or don't match queries. However, it doesn't specify what type of system this is for (e.g., search engine, database) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'validate_query', making it somewhat vague rather than specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as needing an existing document or index, or compare it to sibling tools like 'search' (for finding documents) or 'validate_query' (for checking query validity). This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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