IP 段库存状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by mentioning pagination and inventory status, but does not disclose rate limits, default behaviors, or response shape beyond what the schema/annotations already imply.

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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the downstream ordering use without redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 read-only paginated query tool, the description combined with fully documented parameters and rich annotations is sufficiently complete. The only minor gap is the lack of an exact output shape, but the description already states the result contains IP segments and inventory status.

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 parameter documentation already explains each field. The description adds only the ordering handoff context for ip_str/specifyIps, which is useful but not necessary for understanding the parameters.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('分页查询'), a clear resource ('某静态住宅产品的 IP 段及库存状态'), and the context for use ('下单时可把有库存的段填到 ip_str 或 specifyIps'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/query tools like city_list or country_list.

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 implies the tool should be used when checking IP segment availability before placing an order, saying stock segments can be passed to ip_str or specifyIps. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for ordering/booking.

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