查询产品最低价

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the annotations: the price is a store-verified RMB landed price with in-stock prioritization, which tells the agent how to interpret the returned figure rather than just that it exists.

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 sentence, no filler, and the core action (lowest purchasable price) is front-loaded before the secondary return facets. Everything stated 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description is complete for calling the tool correctly; only routing guidance against siblings is absent.

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% for the single sku parameter, including examples and the suggestion to use search_products first. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies – the schema carries this dimension entirely.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (查询某个 AI 产品的可买最低价) and enumerates the returned facets: price range, shop count, and the source shop. It is clearly distinguishable from search_products or list_all_products by its price-centric scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it when you need the lowest purchasable price for a known SKU. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., get_offers for deeper offer lists, get_price_trend for history). The note about using search_products first lives in the schema, not the description.

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