采购详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds nothing beyond that fact, saying nothing about what happens for a missing or malformed ID, whether deleted purchases are visible, or what a returned record contains.

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 short front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the key scoping word ('单条') early. It is efficient, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description could say what a purchase record comprises, and the missing not-found semantics matter for a by-ID lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema even includes a format example ('rec_123'), so the single parameter is fully documented elsewhere. The description's '按 ID' merely restates the schema and adds no format or constraint information.

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 clear verb ('获取') and resource ('单条采购记录') scoped to a single record by ID, which implicitly distinguishes it from the list operation. However, it never names purchase.list or any sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus purchase.list or budget.get, nor any mention of prerequisites or not-found behavior. The ID-only scope is the only implicit signal.

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