shopping_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact return contents (per-platform mode with live/mock semantics, missing environment variable names, application location and required qualifications). The word 查看 implies a read-only inspection, though read-only/non-destructive behavior is never stated explicitly, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: what it inspects, what it returns, and when to call it. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully summarizes the return shape (mode, missing env vars, application info), which exceeds requirements. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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: viewing credential configuration status, running mode, and application guidance across taobao/jd/pdd. This is unmistakably a diagnostic/status tool, clearly distinguished from siblings like search_products, get_product, and convert_link which all perform shopping operations rather than configuration checks.

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?

"开始任何调用前先看这个" (check this before making any call) gives an explicit usage directive and priority ordering. It does not name when-not-to-use or explicitly enumerate alternatives, but the sequencing instruction is clear enough that an agent knows exactly when to reach for it.

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