mkt_deal_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does state the operation is read-only and discloses the shape of what comes back (who / action / why / days). It says nothing about how candidates are ranked, whether results are capped, or what happens when there are no due deals — gaps that matter for a prioritization tool.

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?

A single fragment, front-loaded with the read-only safety signal and then the four output fields via parallel '、' clauses. Zero padding and scannable, though the telegraphic style leaves terms like '转化' and '几天内' underspecified.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields. However, with no annotations and an unexplained 'on' parameter, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently in every case.

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?

There is one parameter, 'on', with 0% schema coverage, and the description never mentions it — not its format, whether it is a date or an entity scope, nor what the default is when omitted. With a totally undocumented parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 specifies the resource ('转化'/deals) and enumerates the payload the tool returns: who to follow up with today, the next action, the rationale, and the time window. That is more concrete than the sibling mkt_deals (a plain list) and reads as a 'next-best-action' tool, though it never states the object type explicitly nor names a sibling to contrast with.

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 says '只读' (read-only) which implies a safe inspection call, but gives no conditions for choosing this over mkt_deals, mkt_followup_due, or mkt_opportunity, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing from the phrase '今天该跟谁' alone.

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