购买时长 IP

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and destructive, but the description adds concrete operational consequences: it charges account balance, rejects duplicate same-parameter requests within 5 seconds, and imposes order-level caps such as datacenter max 50 and no 7-day option. This context about cost, rate limiting, and prerequisite verification goes beyond the annotation hints. None of this contradicts the 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 three tightly packed sentences with the most important warning (balance deduction) placed first. Every sentence adds distinct information: what is purchased, backend constraints, and account prerequisites. There is no filler, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 purchase tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: billing, product scope, quantity/timelen constraints, duplicate-request rejection, and verification prerequisites. It does not restate the confirm_token two-step flow or specifyIps sum rule, but those are fully described in the input schema, so the description remains sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 parameter coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reaffirming that `num` is the IP count and backend limits, and it contributes a new constraint not present in the schema: datacenter purchases cannot use the 7-day `timelen` value. This extra constraint pushes it above baseline, though most parameter detail still lives in the schema.

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 states a specific action: purchasing time-based IP sub-accounts for static residential or datacenter products, with `num` as the IP quantity. This clearly differentiates it from sibling buy tools such as order_buy_dynamic and order_buy_ipv6 by explicitly scoping the product type. It is not a tautology and includes concrete resource context.

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 usage context (for static residential/datacenter timed IP purchases) and states prerequisites such as email/phone and real-name verification before purchase. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over siblings like order_buy_dynamic, order_buy_ipv6, or order_buy_test_ip, nor does it mention alternatives. Thus usage guidance is present but only implied.

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