mkt_signal_interpretation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does add real behavior by declaring the operation read-only and by explaining that certain candidate classes are excluded from executable opportunities. That is meaningful filtering semantics beyond the name. It does not describe what a validation result contains, whether rejected candidates are returned with reasons, or how malformed candidates are handled.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the action before the exclusion list, with no filler. The compression into jargon-heavy Chinese phrasing costs some readability but no words are wasted.

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?

The tool takes an opaque structured payload and has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of contract information. It leaves the candidate schema, return value, and failure behavior entirely unspecified, which is insufficient for a validation-style tool whose entire contract is the input shape.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'candidates', typed only as object-or-array with 0% schema description coverage. The description gestures at it via '宿主结构化语义候选' but never explains the candidate object's fields or required structure, so an agent cannot construct a valid value from this text. With a single unstructured parameter, the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a verb and object ('只读校验宿主结构化语义候选' – read-only validation of host structured semantic candidates), so the general action is identifiable. However, '语义候选' (semantic candidates) is undefined jargon, and the tool's relationship to siblings such as mkt_opportunity or mkt_scorecard is never stated. The purpose is inferable but not concrete.

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 supplies exclusion criteria — technical discussion, self-reported purchase intent, and unreachable targets do not qualify — which implies when the tool should not be applied. But it never says when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools, nor does it state who supplies the candidates or in what workflow stage. Guidance is partial and input-oriented rather than tool-choice-oriented.

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