get_price_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile itself; the 'get/摘要' framing implies a read-only operation and it discloses the important behavioral rule that omitting monitor_id aggregates ALL active monitors. It does not state permissions, rate limits, or whether inactive monitors are excluded, which is meaningful for an aggregation tool.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by example queries and then fallback/default rules — a sensible order for an agent reading top-down. The example list is slightly padded but each line maps to a distinct invocation pattern, so nothing is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description still names the summary fields, and all three optional parameters are covered behaviorally. The remaining shortfall is the absence of annotations, leaving the safety/permission profile implicit for an aggregation query.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that monitor_id is optional and scopes to a single product vs all active monitors, that site filters by site, and that days defaults to 3. The only gap is that site's accepted format (e.g. 'SG') is shown only by example in a sample query rather than specified.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('获取...价格摘要') and enumerates the returned metrics (current price, baseline, max/min/avg, trend direction), which clearly separates it from a raw history tool. It never names the closest sibling (get_price_history) or explains how a 'summary' differs from 'history' or 'overview', so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 three concrete user-phrasing examples ('竞品最近价格怎么样', 'SG 站上盯的几个商品近 2 天价格怎样', '有没有降价的竞品'), which is strong positive routing guidance. It also defines the no-monitor_id fallback behavior. It stops short of stating when to prefer get_price_history or get_monitor_overview instead, so no exclusions are given.

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