coupon_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the query returns (e.g., status codes, data format). The mention of the HTTP API adds minimal context but lacks operational details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The inclusion of the HTTP API and parameter explanation is relevant but could be more streamlined. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and a simple input schema, the description is minimally complete for a query tool but lacks depth on usage context and behavioral traits. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses operational guidance.

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?

The description adds meaning for the single parameter 'order_id' by explaining it as '订单号' (order number), which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's title 'Order Id'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates adequately but doesn't provide additional details like format examples or constraints. The baseline is 3 due to low parameter count.

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's purpose: '查询订单关联的券码生成状态' (query the coupon generation status associated with an order). It specifies the verb (query) and resource (coupon generation status for an order), making the intent understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coupon_detail' or 'equity_query', which might also relate to coupons or queries.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the corresponding HTTP API but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for checking pending coupons, completed ones, or how it differs from 'coupon_detail' or other query tools in the sibling list.

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