卡有谱流量卡查询

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely non-derived behavioral context: unknown fields are not inferred as free/unlimited, only known enrollment conditions are reported, and signal quality is out of scope. That epistemic-disclosure rule is exactly what an agent needs to interpret partial results, though return formatting/pagination is not discussed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the comparison verb and scope front-loaded; each clause carries information (compared fields, no inference of unknowns, no signal-quality comparison). Slightly dense for a single run-on sentence but no wasted text.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is compared, what is deliberately excluded, and how unknown values are handled. The only real gap is that it never routes the agent from get_plan/search_plans into this tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the slug array, its 2–3 count bounds and its provenance from search_plans. The description only adds the qualifiers '不同' (distinct) and '在售' (on-sale), which is marginal added meaning — the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (对比两到三款在售套餐) and enumerates the compared dimensions (月租、通用及定向流量、通话、已知办理条件), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly separates itself from get_plan/search_plans via the 2–3 slug operand, but never names those siblings explicitly, 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?

Usage is implied by the 2–3 slug constraint and the source of slugs (search_plans per the schema), and '不比较信号质量' functions as a scope exclusion. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer compare_plans over calling get_plan repeatedly, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it says known terms (首充、优惠、合约), unknown fields, and channel data dates are preserved as-is, which tells the agent the payload is a faithful, unnormalized read, and it explicitly states no application is submitted.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action and input source front-loaded, followed by the data-fidelity caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is a dense list that could be slightly leaner.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of hinting at return content, and it does so by naming the clause categories and noting unknown items and channel data dates are kept. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the response shape and error behavior for an unknown slug are unaddressed.

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 a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the slug, its origin in search_plans, and its pattern. The description restates the same slug provenance without adding format or edge-case detail, so the schema is doing the work — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (在售套餐) and pins the input to a slug produced by search_plans, so the agent can tell it apart from the search tool. It does not, however, say anything about how it differs from compare_plans, leaving one sibling undifferentiated.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use — call it with the slug returned by search_plans — which implicitly routes the agent to search first, then fetch details. It also marks a boundary ('不提交申请'), but never mentions compare_plans as an alternative for multi-plan comparison, so the when-not guidance is partial.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the default sort order and, importantly, the caveat that results do not guarantee availability or market-optimality, plus the return fields (conditions, data date, detail links).

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads the filterable dimensions and return payload, the second covers the default ordering and the reliability caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does cover what is returned (条件、资料日期、详情链接) and the default ordering, which is helpful. It leaves pagination semantics (limit/offset), the free-text query parameter, and the nationwide toggle entirely unexplained, so an agent can call it but not tune it precisely.

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 only 50%, so the description has to carry weight: it maps the core filter concepts (province, operator, budget, general data, voice) to parameters and states the default sort order. It adds nothing about limit, offset, query, or nationwide, which are documented only partially or not at all in the schema, so it only partially compensates.

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 specific verb (筛选/filter) and resource (本站在售套餐) and lists the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings compare_plans or get_plan, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The disclaimer '不保证可办或全市场最优' concerns result reliability rather than usage context, so the agent gets no help deciding between this tool, compare_plans, and get_plan.

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