affairs_apps

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the no-login requirement and the total application count, but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what each catalog entry 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently communicates the resource, access condition, scale, and filtering capability.

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 two-parameter listing tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the resource, no-login access, count, and filtering, though it omits return-field details that could help an agent understand the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's note that filtering is possible by name/department adds only a high-level restatement of the keyword parameter and does not provide additional syntax or examples beyond the 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 identifies the resource as the online service hall application catalog and adds useful scope (176 process applications, no login required). It does not explicitly distinguish this catalog from sibling tools such as affairs_portal or sis_other_applications, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is for browsing service hall applications and notes that no login is required, which is useful context. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like affairs_portal or sis_other_applications, nor does it provide exclusions.

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