zhiqi_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states this is a real-time read of the account table ('实时读账户表'), which clearly signals a read-only operation, and it clarifies that online duration is not counted ('不计分'). This gives meaningful transparency beyond the tool name alone.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and resource, then uses a compact list to convey all return fields and an important semantic caveat. Every element 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the data source, and all returned metrics. It could be slightly stronger by noting how this differs from the sibling zhiqi_points_summary, but that gap is more about tool routing than missing invocation context.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema reflects that, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The description instead compensates by enumerating the output fields, which is sufficient for an invocation with an empty schema.

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 ('查询') and resource ('本智能体积分总览') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so an agent knows precisely what this tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling zhiqi_points_summary, which creates potential ambiguity.

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 querying the agent's own points overview, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over zhiqi_points_summary, zhiqi_points_ledger, or zhiqi_points_rules. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given.

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