单推广链接操作记录（只读）

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by disclosing concrete behaviors: per-page total validation, deduplication by event ID, retention of second-level timestamps and original change text, operator anonymization, null type handling, and early-window error behavior. This gives an agent a rich picture of what will happen when the tool is invoked.

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 information-dense, with no filler. Each clause adds a distinct behavioral or semantic detail, and the key read-only/non-mutating constraint is clearly placed near the end. The semicolon-separated structure is acceptable for a dense technical description.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job of covering return-related traits (timestamps, original change text, anonymization, null type) and an important error condition (early platform window). It is incomplete only in that cdpUrl remains unexplained and the date range format is not specified, which are notable for a 6-parameter 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?

With schema description coverage at only 17%, the description must compensate, and it does partially: it explains that startDate/endDate define a date range and that shop/ad/product are verified. However, it does not explain the cdpUrl parameter, the exact date format, or the meaning of expectedMallId beyond the loose '商品' mention, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 and title clearly identify the resource as operation records for a single promotion link and the action as retrieving them. It adds specificity with phrases like '真实商品推广抽屉操作记录接口' and '不改投放', but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely related siblings such as pdd_promotion_detail or pdd_promotion_data.

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 provides useful context: it is read-only, does not request hourly data, does not modify ad delivery, and errors when the date is earlier than the platform window. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over an alternative, and no sibling tool is named as a comparison.

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