预约 IP

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: fulfillment is asynchronous ('管理员审核后补货' — admin reviews before replenishing), and the operation has no financial or account-creation side effects. It does not mention the two-phase confirm_token flow, though that is covered in the 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 Chinese sentence packs the usage condition, the post-submission flow, and the two most important exclusions with zero waste. The trigger condition is front-loaded, which is exactly what an agent needs first to decide whether to call this 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the combination of description and fully-documented schema covers purpose, precondition, side-effect boundaries, and even the first-call return behavior via confirm_token. The remaining gap is what happens after admin approval (timeline, notification, or whether the reservation converts to an order), which is not addressed anywhere.

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% — every parameter including product enum values and the confirmation-code mechanism is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 (submit a reservation), names the resource (IP), and gives the triggering condition (needed country/region has no stock). It also explicitly scopes what the tool does NOT do ('不扣费、不建子账号'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the order_buy_* and sub_account_* siblings without needing to open any schema.

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 description gives an explicit when-to-use condition: '需要的国家或地区没有库存时' (when the needed country or region has no stock). It implies the when-not-to-use by stating it only registers demand and never charges or creates sub-accounts, which contrasts with the ordering tools, but it never names a specific alternative tool like order_buy_dynamic.

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