子账号白名单

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the read operation, offering no details on return format or potential edge cases. It is consistent with annotations but adds little extra value.

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, short sentence that directly states the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the key verb is front-loaded.

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 operation with annotations covering safety and a schema covering both parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of the return format (e.g., a list of IPs), but this is implied by the tool name and description, and the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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 both parameters (id and product) with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter details, meeting the baseline for high coverage without extra elaboration.

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 '读取动态住宅某个子账号的 IP 白名单' clearly states the action (read), the resource (IP whitelist of a sub-account), and the scope (dynamic residential). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like sub_account_list or sub_account_update, as no other tool mentions whitelist functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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