续费时长 IP

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

The description discloses two important behaviors beyond the annotations: it charges the account balance ('会从账户余额扣费') and caps a single call at 200 sub-accounts. The destructiveHint annotation already flags risk, so the added billing and limit context is valuable. It does not mention the confirm_token preview flow, but that is documented in the parameter 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the most important operational fact (balance deduction) before explaining input structure and limits. Every clause adds useful information with no filler.

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 tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: product scope, grouping requirement, per-group fields, and the batch limit. The confirm_token two-step flow is only in the schema, but since the schema fully documents it, the description remains adequately complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that content must be grouped by country, that each group should contain id list, country, and duration, and that the total is limited to 200 sub-accounts. This goes beyond the raw schema field descriptions.

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 and resource: renewing time-based IP sub-accounts for static residential or datacenter products. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like order_renew_ipv6, order_buy_time_ip, or order_buy_dynamic, and the product scope is explicit.

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 intended use is implied by the verb '续费' and the resource scope, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as order_renew_ipv6 or order_buy_time_ip. No when-not-to-use conditions or exclusions are stated.

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