可用供应商列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds downstream usage context but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or rate limits. With strong annotation coverage, a mid score is appropriate.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the core query action, then explains the value of the returned id. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-required-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input domain, what is returned, and how the returned id is consumed downstream. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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%: the single required product parameter has an enum and a per-value description. The description's mention of 动态住宅产品 aligns with the schema but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '查询动态住宅产品可用的供应商（资源池）'. It also clarifies the practical use of the returned id as a spec for adding sub-accounts or querying traffic. Although it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, the resource scope clearly distinguishes it from list 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?

It states when the result matters: the returned id can be used as spec when adding sub-accounts or querying traffic. This gives an agent a clear usage context. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple read-only list tool this level of guidance is adequate.

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