Compare CNBS Data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld. The description adds that it returns a comparison table (结果表格), but no additional behavioral details like authentication or data source limitations.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise (3 lines of Args, 2 examples) with no redundant information.

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?

No output schema, so description must cover return values—it mentions '对比结果表格' (comparison result table), which is adequate but lacks details on table structure. Given the tool's complexity and good annotations, this is mostly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by providing example parameter combinations and clarifying the relationship between compareType and other parameters (regions for region, years for time).

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 compares CNBS data across regions or time, with specific verbs '对比' and 'compare'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cnbs_search which retrieve data without comparison.

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?

Examples show when to use region vs time comparison, but no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or to prefer siblings. The context is clear for intended use cases.

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