GetPermissionApplyOrderDetail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '查询' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if it returns sensitive information. For a tool that retrieves permission application details (potentially sensitive), this is inadequate.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, return format, and differentiation from sibling tools. The simplicity of the tool (one required parameter) keeps this from being a lower score.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'FlowId' clearly documented as '权限申请单ID' (permission application order ID). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '查询权限申请单的详细信息' clearly states the action (查询 - query) and resource (权限申请单的详细信息 - permission application order details), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListPermissionApplyOrders' or 'ApprovePermissionApplyOrder' - it's a specific detail retrieval tool but this distinction isn't explicitly made in the description.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a specific FlowId), when this is appropriate versus listing orders, or what context requires detailed information versus summary information from other tools.

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