查看各店报价

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds sorting behavior ('in-stock first, then final price'), notes that RMB price includes payment fees, and lists returned fields (store name, price, stock, link). This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or auth needs.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs sorting order, return fields, and use cases. Every clause contributes information with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, sorting, and return fields. Minor gaps (e.g., not mentioning the limit parameter's effect) are covered by the schema, so the description needn't repeat them.

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 100%, so all parameters (sku, limit, include_out_of_stock) are documented in the schema. The description mentions '某个 AI 产品' (a certain AI product) which implicitly maps to sku, but it adds no additional semantics for limit or include_out_of_stock beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (列出/list) and resource (各店报价/quotes across stores) for an AI product. It states the sorting order and returned fields, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_lowest_price, which could cause confusion for an agent deciding between listing all offers versus just the lowest price.

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 provides clear usage context: '用于回答「哪家店最便宜」「去哪买」' (used to answer which store is cheapest and where to buy). This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like get_lowest_price or search_products, leaving some ambiguity about sibling selection.

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