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

Annotations only declare non-readonly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive. The description adds substantive traits: it does not add payment, does not consume revisions, does not restore credentials, and request_key is fixed across retries of the same attempt, which explains the idempotency guarantee concretely.

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?

Front-loaded precondition, then behavior, then exclusions — a logical flow with no filler sentences. It is a single dense paragraph with semicolon chaining that is slightly harder to scan but not 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. Combined with the applicability rules, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only service_id/credential semantics remain 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirmation (records the actual user instruction), run_id (sourced from resume_action) and request_key (fixed per retry), but leaves service_id and credential undocumented.

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 (恢复/resume) and resource (platform interruption resumed against the original order's confirmed content and template). This is clearly distinguished from siblings like create_order, cancel_order and request_change.

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 explicit preconditions: resume_action must be present in the original order status and the user must have explicitly agreed. It also states exclusions — cancelled, expired, refunded, or already-delivered orders do not apply — leaving nothing to inference.

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