Look up a Chinese mobile phone prefix attribution. Returns carrier, province, city, area code, postal code, region code, number type from MIIT data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | 11-digit Chinese phone number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or data source update frequency.
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?
Description is short and front load: single sentence states action, then bullet-like list of return fields. Efficient use of words.
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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return values. Could be improved by specifying expected phone number format or error conditions.
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% and already describes the parameter as '11-digit Chinese phone number'. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states action (lookup) and resource (Chinese mobile phone prefix), and lists output fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_china_phone_info', which may serve a similar purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description does not aid in tool selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Both tools perform almost the same function: looking up Chinese phone number attribution. The descriptions are nearly identical, making it unclear which to use and causing agent confusion.
Both use snake_case, but one uses 'get' and the other 'lookup', and one has '_info' suffix while the other does not. The pattern is inconsistent for such similar tools.
Two tools for a simple phone lookup service is borderline. A single tool would suffice; having two suggests redundancy rather than necessary expansion.
The tool surface is incomplete because it duplicates a single operation rather than covering distinct aspects like validation, batch lookup, or historical data. The domain is minimally covered with redundancy.