get_reader_borrowing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the admin token requirement but fails to describe the response format, rate limits, or data privacy implications (e.g., the 'include_pii' parameter suggests sensitive data handling). With no annotations, crucial behavioral details like read-only nature or possible errors are missing.

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 very concise (one short sentence) with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('读者当前借阅') and adds the critical auth requirement. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated into purpose and usage note) without losing brevity.

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 has 3 parameters (with 67% schema coverage), an output schema, and a clear sibling set, the description adequately signals the core function and auth need. However, it doesn't explain the return format or what happens when the token is missing, but the output schema likely covers return values. The complexity is moderate, and the description almost fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions: 'cert_id' is described as '读者证件号 CERT_ID', and 'include_pii' has a clear explanation). The description adds context about the token being an admin auth requirement, which complements the schema. The 'include_pii' parameter's description in the schema is already informative, and the tool name implies purpose, so the remaining gap is minimal.

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 explicitly states '读者当前借阅' (reader's current borrowing) with the specific verb 'get' implied by the tool name and '需 admin 认证令牌' (requires admin auth token). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_reader_history' (historical borrowing) and 'get_reader_fines' (fines), making it unique among reader-related 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 mentions the need for an admin token and implies this is for current borrowing status. However, it does not explicitly exclude when to use alternatives like 'get_reader_history' for past records, nor does it provide clear context on prerequisites beyond the token. Still, the admin token requirement is a strong usage signal that helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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