platform_query_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail about real-time status valueschers, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what happens for unknown/expired order numbers. The 'query' wording implies non-mutating behavior, but more disclosure would be helpful.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. No extraneous details are included, and the status enum adds useful information without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter query tool without an output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it: it names the lookup key, the operation, and the expected status values. It could be more complete by mentioning not-found/error behavior, but the low complexity makes the current description nearly sufficient.

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 only defines orderNo as a required string with no description, and coverage is 0%. The description does clarify that the parameter is the order number used for lookup, which adds some meaning. However, it provides no format, source, or additional constraints beyond what the property name already suggests.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: '按订单号查询实时支付状态' (query real-time payment status by order number). It also enumerates the possible status values (pending/success/failed/expired/refunded), which further clarifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling creation/verification tools.

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 this tool is for checking payment status by order number, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling creation or verification tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical workflow context such as 'use after creating an order'.

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