get-tickets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb '查询' indicates a read-only lookup with no side effects, which is useful baseline information. However, the description does not mention output shape, default result behavior, or quirks beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of schema details. It is minimal enough to be scannable, though slightly under-specified for the complexity of the tool.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is thin. The schema covers invocation details well, including required fields and value formats, but the description leaves gaps around return-value structure and when to choose this tool over get-interline-tickets.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema descriptions are rich and include relative-date handling, station-code lookup hints, and train-filter flags, so the top-level description does not need to compensate.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: '查询12306余票信息' (query 12306 remaining-ticket information), so the agent can identify this as a ticket-availability lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get-interline-tickets, which also searches tickets, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus get-interline-tickets or the station-lookup tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is implied by the phrase '余票信息', but the agent is given no explicit selection criteria among the ticket-related siblings.

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