老师傅完整会谈入口

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully discloses that the tool returns an entry point (入口), not the actual consultation output, and explicitly states the server does not produce the Teacher Master's tone or consultation flow. This prevents the agent from assuming the tool performs the full consultation. It could specify what the entrance looks like, but the output schema likely covers the return value.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, but the single sentence is dense and poetic ('用户想要的不是一张盘，而是有人把盘讲明白'), and the enumeration of five usage conditions (断成败、看时间、点条件、用核对式问句定盘、按需要细讲) makes it longer than strictly necessary. The phrasing is evocative but somewhat verbose.

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 zero-parameter entry-point tool with an output schema, the burden is low. The description covers the use case, what it returns (the official consultation entrance), and what it does not do (generate the consultation itself). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. With an empty schema and no parameters to document, there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema provides.

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: when the user wants a chart explained (成败, timing, conditions, verification questions, detailed explanation) rather than just a chart, return the official entry to the Teacher Master's consultation. It distinguishes itself from the server's chart-only function ('本服务器本身只排盘'), implicitly separating it from the chart-producing siblings, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 explicit triggering conditions: '用户想要的不是一张盘，而是有人把盘讲明白' and enumerates the specific scenarios (断成败、看时间、点条件、用核对式问句定盘、按需要细讲). It implies the alternative (chart tools) by stating the server only produces charts, but doesn't name siblings or say 'use X instead'.

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