州/省列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the scope ('某国家下') and the notion of '可选的' (selectable options), but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the behavior when country_code is omitted.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no redundant phrases and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only lookup with full parameter documentation and explicit annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is that it does not describe the return shape (e.g., list of state IDs and names) since there is no output schema, but this is a minor omission for such a straightforward list tool.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as the source of country_id or the product enum values, keeping it at the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('查询...可选的州或省'), identifies the resource (states/provinces), and scopes it to a product and country. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like country_list and city_list without needing to inspect the schema.

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 is used when a list of states/provinces for a specific country and product is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention prerequisites. The parameter description for country_id references country_list, but that guidance lives in the schema rather than the main description.

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