经营总览数据

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable traits beyond the schema: the response is pure JSON, data is only available for the most recent ready day (previous day), and Excel reporting is deliberately out of scope. It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no side effects', but the verb 拉取 strongly implies a non-mutating fetch.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important constraints (JSON format, data freshness) before listing contents. The final sentence routes Excel needs to an alternative skill. Every part earns its place 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter overview tool, the description covers what data is returned, when it is available, and the output format. Since there is no output schema, the metric enumeration helps fill that gap. It does not explain error behavior or default-shop resolution, but those are adequately handled by the schema and are minor gaps.

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% for the single optional parameter, which already documents the shop key semantics. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but per the baseline, that is acceptable when the schema covers parameters fully.

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, '拉取经营总览数据', and enumerates the exact metrics included (成交金额/订单/转化率/退款, 店铺评分, GMV升级进度, 客服质量). It also states the data format (纯 JSON) and freshness (最近已就绪日即前一日), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings.

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 clearly conveys when the tool is appropriate: for pulling overview data as pure JSON for the most recent ready day. It explicitly directs users to the pdd-daily-report skill when Excel output is needed, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling pdd_* data tools, though the overview scope is clear enough to avoid confusion.

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