gangtise_site_visit_list

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose pagination behavior, potential rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The date context note is helpful but does not cover behavioral traits 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 a single sentence with a front-loaded date context note. It is efficient and avoids verbose repetition, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing filters explicitly).

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only a high-level overview. It does not cover many parameters or explain the return format, pagination, or behavior when filters are empty. This is insufficient for a tool with such complexity.

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 low (33%). The description lists filter types (研究方向, 机构, etc.) corresponding to array parameters, which adds some meaning. However, many parameters (from, keyword, size, fetchAll) are not explained in the description, so it only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 queries a list of research visit schedules (调研日程列表) and lists multiple filter dimensions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle financial statements, downloads, or other data.

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 implies usage for filtered queries of site visits but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use scenarios, and no prerequisites.

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