baidu_text_review

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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive, required authorization, rate limits, or return format. The minimal description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 very short and efficient, with no wasted words. It includes useful pricing and free quota info, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core function from pricing). Still, it earns its place.

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?

Despite low complexity (single param, no nested objects), the description lacks critical context. No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, categories). Without this, the agent cannot fully understand the tool's usage.

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% with one parameter ('text') having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 explicitly states '文本审核' (text review) with categories in parentheses (pornography/violence/politics), making the purpose clear. The [NLP] tag and pricing info provide additional context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like baidu_image_review by focusing on text.

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 for text content moderation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., image review or other NLP tools). No exclusions or scenarios are mentioned.

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