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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them: file links are valid only ~15 minutes, and re-fetching is the correct recovery rather than redoing the task. It does not disclose auth/permission requirements tied to the credential parameter.

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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence with zero filler: precondition first, then return payload, then expiry behavior and the recovery rule. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the delivery precondition plus link expiry are well covered. However, for a tool requiring a pattern-constrained service_id and a 32+ char credential with no schema descriptions, the absence of any parameter guidance leaves a real completeness gap.

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% across three parameters (service_id, credential, version), yet the description mentions none of them. With no field-level documentation anywhere, the agent gets no guidance on the service_id pattern or what version selects, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (获取/get) and concrete resources: the delivered 正文 (content), manifest, and time-limited file links, scoped to after successful delivery. It is clearly distinct from sibling get_run_events (events) and get_order (order state), though it does not name an alternative 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?

Gives a clear precondition (成功交付后, only after successful delivery) and an operational rule for the failure path: if links expire, re-fetch rather than re-running the task. It lacks explicit 'use X instead when…' routing against siblings such as get_run_events, keeping it short of a 5.

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