华哥·全国招投标数据

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what happens at runtime (auto-searches the project library, returns a lead list, a monthly overview and follow-up suggestions), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, latency, cost, or any access requirements.

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 compact, front-loaded passage: purpose first, then two inline examples, then the optional keyword filter. No filler sentences, though the embedded examples make it slightly denser than a strict one-line statement.

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 and no annotations, the description does cover what the tool returns (leads, monthly overview, suggestions), which is the main gap it needs to fill. It still omits any routing guidance against the closely related sibling tools, so it is not fully complete for selection.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema with defaults and examples ('limit' default 10 max 30, 'keyword', 'province', 'question'). The description only echoes the keyword filter, adding no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: ask the 'Minger' assistant natural-language questions about bidding leads, and details the deliverable (lead list, monthly overview, next-step suggestions). The purpose is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_bidding_projects, which sounds like an overlapping retrieval tool.

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?

It gives concrete natural-language usage examples (finding suitable projects, recent Hainan informatization tenders), which implies when to use it. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or pointer to alternatives such as search_bidding_projects or get_bidding_market_stats, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval path to pick.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the aggregate nature and dimensions of the returned data, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, freshness/lag of the statistics, or whether the result is a fixed snapshot.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the dimensions covered, followed by usage examples. Every clause earns its place, though the example-question list is slightly 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates reasonably by enumerating the four result categories. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it lacks any note on result scope or limitations.

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%, so both parameters (month, province) are already fully documented in the schema, including the YYYY-MM format and the 'default current month' behavior. The description only echoes these at a high level ('本月/指定月份'), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (bidding market statistics) and enumerates the exact aggregates returned: project counts for a month, industry-category distribution across engineering/goods/services, top provinces, and agency rankings. This clearly separates it from search_bidding_projects (per-project results) and ask_minger_bidding (Q&A), though it never names those siblings 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?

It provides concrete when-to-use context via two example queries ('品类分布' and '表现好的代理机构') and frames the tool for market-insight scenarios. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives telling the agent when NOT to pick this tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned content (categories, price ranges, delivery cycles), which is useful. However, it says nothing about authentication needs, result limits, or whether the lookup is static or live.

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 with the resource and its dimensions, then examples; every clause carries information. Slightly dense with the long enumeration and example list, but nothing is filler.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description still communicates what the tool returns and when to reach for it, which is adequate for a one-parameter catalog lookup. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens with an unrecognized category.

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% and the single optional 'category' parameter is documented in the schema with the same keyword list. The description adds no syntax or filtering behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (查询) plus resource (软件定制开发服务类目、报价区间与交付周期) and enumerates the concrete domains covered (小程序/官网/H5/OA/ERP/数据平台). This clearly separates it from the bidding-oriented siblings.

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 three representative user phrasings ('开发一个微信小程序什么价位', '企业官网定制服务内容', 'H5制作交付周期') that map directly to this tool, so an agent can match intent. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the bidding siblings are obviously a different domain.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, region, budget in 万元, owner, agency, stage, date, source link), but discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit note.

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 tight paragraph ordered as resource → filter dimensions → return fields → example phrasings. Every sentence carries information, though the return-field enumeration is dense rather than front-loaded for skimming.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. An agent has everything needed to call it; only the absence of any alternative-tool guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the schema already documents all 8 optional parameters with examples. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — the expected baseline of 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource plus the data source ('查询 hndcw.com 全国政府招投标/建设项目库'), which tells an agent exactly what corpus is being searched. It is clearly distinct from get_bidding_market_stats and search_policy_documents, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Three natural-language example queries ('帮我找XX招标项目', '查海口社会调查类标的', '列最近一周预算50万以下的标的') concretely convey the intended usage contexts. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus ask_minger_bidding), so no explicit alternative routing.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (title, issuing unit, document number, deadline, summary, link), which is useful, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor mention pagination or result-limit behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the domain and then the filters and return fields. It is efficient and well-ordered, though the return-field enumeration makes it slightly long for one sentence.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields, and the filter parameters map to the documented schema. For a read-only search tool with no annotations, this covers most of what an agent needs, though read-only/pagination behavior remains unstated.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the default/max on limit. The description mirrors these filters (keyword, region, industry) without adding syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail, which is the correct baseline of 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+resource (查询/search policy documents) and names the precise domain (海南自贸港及全国惠企政策情报) with the covered policy types. This clearly distinguishes it from the bidding/dev-service siblings, which operate in an entirely different domain.

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 usage by listing filter dimensions (keyword, region, industry), but never states when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since no sibling covers policy documents, the absence of routing guidance is not fatal, but nothing explicit is offered.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema: submitting triggers a dedicated consultant follow-up (i.e., the contact details will be used to reach the user). It omits anything about how the ticket is persisted, expected response time, error behavior, or whether contact info is stored.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the prerequisites. The closing enumeration of name/contact/detail is somewhat redundant with the required-parameters list, but overall it is tight and earns its space.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and inputs but says nothing about the result (ticket ID? confirmation message?) or timing, which the agent would need since no output schema documents the return 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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the '至少10字' detail constraint and enum-like requirementType values. The description merely restates the three required fields, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('提交软件定制开发需求工单') and enumerates the covered scope (小程序/网站/H5/OA/ERP等), so the agent immediately knows this creates a development-request ticket. Among siblings like get_dev_service_catalog and search_bidding_projects, this is unambiguously the submission action rather than a lookup.

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: you use it to hand off a custom-development requirement and a consultant follows up. However, it never states when NOT to use it (e.g., for browsing existing services use get_dev_service_catalog) or what prerequisite context is needed, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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