acquire_book

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: retry verifies without re-uploading, cancel does NOT delete CWA records, and resolve requires consistent language. These are useful operational constraints, though it doesn't explain repeated start behavior despite idempotentHint=true.

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?

It is short and organized sentence-per-action, with no filler. But there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool is, and the dense mixed Chinese/English text with the undefined acronym 'CWA' hurts immediate comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The per-action behavior is largely covered, but the description omits the tool's overall purpose and any guidance for choosing acquire_book versus its four siblings, which matters for an openWorld multi-action 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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and only partially does. It usefully maps parameters to actions (request_id/candidate_id/required_format for start; task_id/candidate_id for resolve), which the schema cannot express, but it never defines the meaning, expected values, or provenance of those ids.

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 precisely scopes each of the four actions (start creates a persistent task, retry only verifies submitted tasks, resolve selects a CWA match, cancel preserves records), so the agent knows what each invocation does. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from upload_book ('retry 不重新上传'). However, it never states the tool's overall purpose and uses an undefined term ('CWA'), so sibling differentiation against search_books/get_task is weak.

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 real routing context per action: retry is only for already-submitted tasks and does not re-upload, resolve is for explicitly choosing a match, and metadata differences after submission should be handled by re-searching rather than re-resolving. An exclusion ('不重新上传') and an alternative ('重新搜索再选择') are present, though it never addresses when to prefer acquire_book over the sibling tools.

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