商品刊登检查

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the detail that it checks specific listing fields and explicitly reinforces non-mutation ('不写回平台'). This adds some context beyond annotations but does not disclose output format or failure behaviors.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the non-mutation guarantee with no filler. It is extremely concise and easy to parse.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description still fails to explain what report_id is or what the tool returns. An agent cannot know how to obtain a valid report_id or interpret the audit results. The description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the sole parameter report_id, and the description provides no explanation of what report_id represents, how it is obtained, or its format. The description is entirely unhelpful for understanding this parameter, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a clear verb (检查/check) and resource (listing issues), and enumerates specific aspects (title, image, description, price, status). It explicitly says it does not write back to the platform, which further clarifies its scope. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which sibling tools to prefer for different needs. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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