query_by_quality

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that mapping is judgmental (判断非事实), explains statuses (auto_approved/draft), specifies that evidence_quote is a true substring, and clarifies default filtering (only machine-approved results). This is thorough, but could further mention ordering or pagination behavior.

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 relatively concise for its content, covering key behavioral aspects in two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and then adds details. Could be slightly tighter, but no waste.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable level of detail about what the tool returns: representative events and persons, original text evidence, and evidence quote as true substring. It explains the quality mapping and filtering options. However, it lacks explicit mention of result structure or ordering, which could enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that quality comes from a 55-term controlled vocabulary and can be specified in Chinese or English slug, which goes beyond the schema's simple '品质名或 slug' description. It also clarifies include_draft and limit defaults, but these are already in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to query representative events and persons by quality (德性/才能/性情/为政…), with original text evidence. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on quality-based search, and mentions a controlled vocabulary, making the intent unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (for quality-based queries) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_person, query_by_place, or search_events. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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