读取大众点评店铺详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (address, phone, hours, rating, selected reviews), which is beyond the annotation scope. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no extraneous information.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return data. It could mention the output format (e.g., JSON object) but is otherwise complete for the given complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that the 'shop' parameter should come from search results, which is a meaningful addition. However, the 'reviewLimit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the added value for 'shop' is modest, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reads store details (address, phone, hours, rating, selected reviews) using a shop ID or URL from search results. It uses a specific verb ('读取' - read) and resource ('店铺详情' - store details), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'search_places' (search for places) and 'check_session' (session check).

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 gives context by specifying that the shop ID/URL should come from search results ('根据搜索结果中的...'), which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tools are naturally different.

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