单品销量分析

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 tool's data coverage ('全部明文接口', metric categories) and implicitly suggests a read-only analytics operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, mention rate limits/errors, or describe output shape. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose before a compact list of delivered data. Every phrase (metric categories, goodsId source, plaintext-interface note) adds information, with no filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the major return categories and the key prerequisite (goodsId from pdd_goods_data). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though field-level details and interpretation of the scores are left unspecified.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantics for goodsId by tying it to pdd_goods_data output, which helps the agent know where the value comes from. Shop is not mentioned in the description but is already documented in the schema.

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 '单品深度分析' (single-item deep analysis), giving a specific action and resource, and enumerates concrete data categories (today/yesterday metrics, time-phased sales trend, after-sales quality, navigator/health scores, review overview). It stops short of naming siblings or stating what it is not, so it is clearly scoped but not explicitly differentiated from pdd_goods_data/pdd_goods_navigator.

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 gives a concrete workflow hint: 'goodsId 从 pdd_goods_data 的结果里拿', telling the agent to first retrieve goodsId from pdd_goods_data before calling this tool. This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not state exclusions or when to prefer an alternative.

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