mkt_voice_lint

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value by explaining the output shape: a list of problems, an empty list meaning the text is usable. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes, does not say what happens on an unsupported platform, and does not describe what a problem item contains.

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?

One compact sentence and a clause, with the core action first and the return semantics second. Nothing is wasted, but the extreme terseness is close to under-specification rather than true concision.

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 two-parameter read-only check, the description covers purpose and return meaning; since there is no output schema, describing the empty-list convention is exactly the right compensation. The gap is the undocumented set of valid platform values, which the agent needs in order to call the tool successfully.

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 0% and there are zero enums, so the description must define both parameters. It only restates that there is 'a piece of text' and 'the specified platform'; it never enumerates valid platform values, case sensitivity, or text length limits, leaving the most failure-prone parameter undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lints ('检查') a piece of text to determine whether a given platform will treat it as advertising. That is concrete and distinguishable from generic siblings such as mkt_voice or mkt_plan_lint, though it never names a sibling to compare itself with.

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?

Use is implied: check text before publishing it to the named platform. The description does not state when NOT to use it, nor when to prefer related tools such as mkt_voice or mkt_plan_lint, so the agent must infer the routing.

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