zhiqi_points_ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return fields (flowType/direction/delta/balance snapshot/voucher number) and mentions cursor pagination, giving the agent an idea of what to expect. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since it is a ledger query, read-only is implied but not stated.

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 that states the purpose and key constraints. It is efficient and avoids fluff. The timezone clarification and return-item list are placed after the core purpose, which is appropriate. It earns a 4 for being 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 tool's complexity (cursor pagination, date range, return fields), the description covers the essential points: pagination, date semantics, timezone, and return items. It does not mention the limit and cursor parameters, but those are documented in the schema. However, it lacks guidance on typical use cases or prerequisites, and no output schema exists, so return structure is only partially described. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that from/to are business days in Asia/Shanghai and not UTC timestamps, which the schema descriptions do not fully convey (they only say YYYY-MM-DD). This adds value but does not go beyond a slight enhancement, hence a 3.

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 queries a points detail ledger (查询积分明细账) with cursor pagination. It specifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from zhiqi_points_summary which likely provides aggregated totals. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 gives an important usage hint: from/to are business days in Asia/Shanghai (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive) and not UTC timestamps, which is crucial for correct parameter values. It implicitly differentiates from summary tools but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The timezone note is helpful but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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