watch.history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious trait by saying results are aggregated by product (按商品聚合), and '查看' implies read-only. But it does not mention ordering, pagination, or the behavior of the limit parameter, leaving those to schema or output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical efficiently communicates the aggregation behavior without unnecessary 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 read-style tool with one required integer and one optional limit, plus an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavior. It is not fully complete because usage guidance and limit semantics remain implicit, but nothing critical is missing for straightforward invocation.

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 clarify parameters. It partially does: '某个监控项' maps to watch_id and '按商品聚合' adds grouping semantics. However, the optional limit parameter is not described at all, though its name and default value make it reasonably inferable.

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 uses a specific verb (查看) and resource (监控项的价格历史), and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail (按商品聚合). This clearly marks it as price-history retrieval rather than watch.list, watch.jobs, or watch.alerts, so an agent can select it among many watch.* 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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need price history for a monitored item. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related but different needs such as watch.jobs or watch.list.

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