dast_flight_overview_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the tool is paid, that repeated calls should be avoided, that the returned file_url is short-lived and must be downloaded/parsed immediately, and that empty or zero metrics must not be fabricated. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage rule, then exclusions, then data caveats. Each paragraph conveys a distinct decision-relevant fact with no filler, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even though there is no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what to expect (xlsx, contents, file_url), how to handle the result (download/parse immediately, don't repeat), and which claims are safe to make (only return actual metrics). This is complete enough for correct invocation and response handling.

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 already documents date as required with format, range, and failure behavior. The description repeats the required format and adds the confirmation rule, but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('生成...全国民航每日总览 Excel 文件') and enumerates the workbook worksheets, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It also excludes adjacent query types (single flight dynamics, airport weather, flight paths, routes, delay probability), differentiating it from its siblings.

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?

It states explicit conditions for use ('适用于用户要求查看、下载或分析某一天的全国民航运行情况') and clear negative guidance ('若查询单个航班动态...不使用本工具'). It also instructs the agent to confirm the date when not provided, which is actionable and prevents misinvocation.

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