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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: an API Key is required, and include_step0=true changes the payload by attaching Step0 素材引导问答 for the order. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if neither id is supplied, or any rate/error behavior.

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 one-liner stating the resource, the either/or constraint, and the auth requirement, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information; only the loose formatting (trailing newline/indentation) is mildly untidy.

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?

Covers auth, the two mutually exclusive identifiers, and the include_step0 side effect, which is most of what a 3-param tool needs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves undefined what the detail payload contains and what happens if both parameters are omitted (both default to 0).

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%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: order_id (with its origin tool), page_id (with explicit mutual exclusivity and override rule), and include_step0 (with the conditional extra return). Types and defaults are still only in the schema, but the semantics are well covered.

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 pair — retrieve details for either a 盘点订单 or a 展示页 — and names zengzhi_report_orders as the source of order_id, which anchors it in the sibling set. It does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like zengzhi_public_page, 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?

Explicitly states '二选一传参' and clarifies precedence: '传了 page_id 就忽略 order_id', so the agent knows which parameter wins when both are supplied. It also points to zengzhi_report_orders as the upstream call to obtain order_id, giving clear context without stating when-not-to-use cases.

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