购买测试 IP

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it deducts balance, consumes monthly quota, has a default validity of 1 day, and is restricted to business testing. It also discloses the two-step confirmation flow via confirm_token, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the most critical behavioral facts (billing, quota, rejection conditions). It's concise and every sentence adds value. Slightly dense but appropriate for the complexity of the operation.

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 mutating purchase tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational constraints: billing, quota, validity, verification requirements, and the confirmation flow. It doesn't describe the return value or what happens after a successful purchase, but the confirm_token flow is explained. Given the complexity, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention what the response contains.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds context about the confirm_token flow (first call returns preview and token, second call with token confirms), which is valuable. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for other parameters like num, country, product, etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: purchasing test IPs for static residential or datacenter products, with billing and quota implications. It distinguishes itself from siblings like order_buy_dynamic and order_buy_ipv6 by specifying '测试 IP' and the product types. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides explicit context: it deducts from account balance, consumes monthly test quota, and requires prior email/phone and real-name verification. It also states when purchases will be rejected (quota exhausted or exceeding remaining quota). It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of order_buy_dynamic when...' but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for test IP purchases.

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