gangtise_earnings_review_check

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation (status check) but omits details like read-only nature, error handling for invalid dataId, rate limits, or expected response structure.

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, efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include a bit more context without harming conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only one param, the description does not cover expected return values, possible statuses, or error conditions. It is incomplete for effective use.

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 0% (no param descriptions in schema). The description adds that dataId is used to query status, but provides no format, source, or example. For a single required parameter, this is minimal additional meaning.

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 clearly states the tool checks the generation status of an earnings review task by dataId. It uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('业绩点评任务的生成状态'), and distinguishes from sibling gangtise_earnings_review which likely creates/submits tasks.

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?

No explicit usage guidelines or when-not-to-use instructions are provided. The context implies usage after obtaining a dataId from a task submission, but this is not stated. Sibling names hint at alternatives, but no direct guidance.

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