商品数据

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a pure JSON fetch, enumerates the data included, and warns about slowness when the flag is enabled. It does not mention rate limits or errors, but for a read-only data pull the key behaviors are covered.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then gives the response contents, the flag behavior, and the alternative skill. There is no filler and each clause earns its place.

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 tool with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys what the response contains (categorized metrics, promotion data, shop-level data) and the performance implication of the flag. Missing details like exact JSON keys or error behavior are minor for this simple fetch tool.

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 schema already explains both parameters. The description repeats the withYesterdayFullDay trade-off but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('拉取商品维度数据') and enumerates exactly what is included: all products, yesterday full-day metrics, today real-time metrics, activity recommendations, promotion data, and shop-level real-time data. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like an overview or a single-goods detail tool.

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?

It explicitly states a when-not and alternative for Excel reports ('如需 Excel 报表，用 pdd-daily-report skill') and explains the trade-off of enabling withYesterdayFullDay=true (more accurate but slower). It does not exhaustively compare against all sibling data tools, but the context is clear.

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