qianji_operation_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it will not resend the write request, directly addressing the duplicate-write risk an agent would worry about. It does not mention pagination or latency, hence not a 5.

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?

A single tight sentence split by a semicolon: capability first, then the key reassurance. Nothing redundant, nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only/no-resend behavior is well covered. However, the undocumented 'automatic' input parameter and the 0% schema coverage leave a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: neither 'request_id' nor the 'automatic' flag is mentioned or explained. An agent gets no guidance on where request_id comes from or what 'automatic' changes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: query and verify the native result of a pending ('待核实') operation. The clause '此调用不会重发写请求' implicitly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like qianji_execute, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase '待核实操作' implies the usage context (there is a pending operation to confirm), which is adequate but implicit. It does not state when to prefer this over siblings such as qianji_recovery_list or qianji_query, nor any prerequisites.

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