amap_poi_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of information returned (score, per-person cost, hours, images) and implies a read-only lookup. It does not discuss error behaviors or rate limits, but for a simple detail retrieval the description is reasonably transparent.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by usage context and key fields. There is no redundant wording, making it appropriately concise and well structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does, how to use it, and what kind of data is returned. It could mention potential error cases or response format, but the information provided is sufficient for basic invocation and integration with sibling tools.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with 'id' described as 'POI ID，来自搜索结果的 id 字段' (POI ID from the search result's id field). The description adds that this tool is for details using that ID, but it doesn't introduce information beyond the schema's own parameter description, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as 'POI 详情查询' (POI detail query) and explains it retrieves detailed information by POI ID, listing specific fields (rating, per capita, business hours, images). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like search, directions, and geocoding.

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 explicitly indicates it is used together with search/ranking tools ('配合搜索/扫街榜使用'), implying the intended workflow (get ID from search, then call this tool for details). It does not list explicit exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose detail lookup.

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