zhiqi_survival_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source, permanent availability, the listed fields, and the business-day semantics of from/to. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, defaults, or output format, but '列出' conveys a query operation and the provided context is substantive.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with the key differentiator front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: source, permanence, the 7-day-limit contrast, business-day querying, and the returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter input and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool returns and the parameter semantics. The main gaps are missing defaults when from/to are omitted and lack of output structure or pagination notes, but these are minor for this straightforward ledger 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. It adds meaning by stating 'from/to 为业务日', which clarifies the parameters are business-day dates rather than generic timestamps. However, it does not specify the date format, optionality/defaults, or range inclusivity, so compensation is only partial.

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') and resource ('存活日台账'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (心跳次数、是否合格、是否已计分、跳过原因、points). It also distinguishes itself from heartbeat-detail tools by noting it is permanent and not subject to the 7-day heartbeat limit.

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 provides clear usage context: it is a daily ledger sourced from the settlement table, permanent, and queried by business day via from/to. It implies a choice over heartbeat-detail alternatives by highlighting the 7-day limitation of those details, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state 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.