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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and external dependency. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the session is invalid, whether it modifies state). It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word is necessary; no filler or repetition.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description fully covers what the tool does: checking local browser, login status, and security verification. There is no output schema or nested complexity, and the annotations already provide safety and openness context. The description, combined with annotations, is complete for agent invocation.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, as none exist.

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 specific verbs and resources ('检查本地浏览器、登录状态及是否需要完成安全验证'), clearly indicating the tool checks the session state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_places and get_place_details, which focus on data retrieval rather than session verification.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention which scenarios require session checking, nor does it explain when to skip it. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation or usage context is provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (address, phone, hours, rating, selected reviews), which is beyond the annotation scope. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no extraneous information.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return data. It could mention the output format (e.g., JSON object) but is otherwise complete for the given complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that the 'shop' parameter should come from search results, which is a meaningful addition. However, the 'reviewLimit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the added value for 'shop' is modest, so a score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads store details (address, phone, hours, rating, selected reviews) using a shop ID or URL from search results. It uses a specific verb ('读取' - read) and resource ('店铺详情' - store details), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'search_places' (search for places) and 'check_session' (session check).

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 gives context by specifying that the shop ID/URL should come from search results ('根据搜索结果中的...'), which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tools are naturally different.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description restates the search behavior but adds no new context about rate limits, pagination, response format, or other traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that directly states purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words. Could be slightly expanded with usage context without harming conciseness.

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 simple search tool with fully described parameters and informative annotations, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings and does not reinforce the open-world behavior implied by the annotation.

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 baseline is 3. The description only mentions city and keyword, which mirrors the schema. It adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the input 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 specifies the verb (search), resource (local businesses on Dianping), and constraints (by city and keyword). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools: get_place_details (details of a specific place) and check_session (auth).

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 usage context (searching with city and keyword) but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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