智能发单-获取订单详情

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the order_code is invalid/not found, return value structure, or any rate limiting concerns. Only the basic input requirement is stated.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action verb. However, it contains a repetition typo ('需要需要') and redundant phrasing that reduces clarity. Despite the brevity, the quality issues prevent a higher score.

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 single-parameter lookup tool without an output schema, the description meets minimum viability by identifying the required input. However, it lacks completeness regarding error scenarios, the nature of the 'details' returned, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear titles and descriptions. The description text repeats the parameter name ('订单编号order_code') but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('获取订单详情' - get order details) and the required resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like '取消订单' (cancel) or '订单询价' (inquiry) within the text itself, relying instead on the tool name for distinction.

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 such as '订单询价' (inquiry) or '跑男信息查询' (runner query). It states what input is needed but not the contextual conditions or prerequisites for selection.

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