提交查询申请

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

With annotations indicating readOnlyHint=false (write operation), the description adds value by disclosing the approval workflow (approval needed before run_query) and the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/v2/query/post). It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds workflow context and the API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The description covers the purpose and approval workflow, but since there is no output schema, it does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., order ID). Given the tool's mutation nature and the need for further steps (like querying order status), this is a notable omission that affects completeness.

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%, with all three parameters (export, remark, source_id) having individual descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 action and resource: '提交数据查询申请' (submit a data query application). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing 'yearning_run_query' and the query submission context, differentiating it from generic submit tools like 'yearning_submit_order'.

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 implies usage: use this to submit a query application, and mentions that if audit is enabled, approval is required before running the query with 'yearning_run_query'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, leaving a slight gap.

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