Maa Infrast Trade

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (selling materials) but says nothing about what gets consumed, whether the action is reversible, or any permission/rate constraints.

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 short phrase with zero filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is compact, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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 so return values needn't be spelled out, but for an unannotated mutation tool in a large sibling family, the description omits the behavioral and contextual details an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, 'client', and the schema already documents it with a description and a default of 'Official' (100% coverage). The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?

The description '基建贸易（出售物资）' names the resource (infrastructure trade) and narrows it to selling materials, which does distinguish it from the sibling maa_infrast_purchase. However, it is too terse to convey what the trade actually affects or outcomes, so the purpose is only broadly identifiable.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus maa_infrast_purchase, maa_infrast_production, or maa_infrast_manage. The 'sell' nuance implies a direction but gives no preconditions or exclusion rules.

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