dianping_shop

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a dependency (shop_id from dianping_search) and implicitly indicates a read-only 'get' operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior, which would be expected without annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second clarifies the parameter source. No unnecessary words, and the structure is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema provided, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and where the input comes from. It does not cover potential edge cases or authentication, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The single parameter shop_id is given semantic context by stating it comes from dianping_search, clarifying its origin and how to obtain it. This is meaningful beyond the bare schema definition of a string type.

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 retrieves Dianping merchant details, using the specific verb '获取' (get) and the resource '大众点评商户详情' (Dianping merchant details). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the shop_id comes from dianping_search, linking it specifically to the search follow-up workflow.

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 the usage context: shop_id is obtained from dianping_search, which tells the agent to run search first and then use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the relationship with the search tool provides clear workflow guidance.

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