yearning_audit_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds pagination and API endpoint context but no further behavioral details like rate limits or auth. Adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and scope, second provides API reference. Front-loaded effectively.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, description is mostly complete for a read-only list tool. Lacks usage guidance vs. siblings, but overall sufficient.

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?

Context indicates 0% schema description coverage, yet the tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond 'paginated list'. Although the schema itself has descriptions for some parameters (text, status, work_id), the description does not compensate for the missing coverage. Marginal value added.

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 lists pending/review orders from the auditor perspective using the verb '列出' and specifies the resource '待审核/审核工单'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'yearning_my_orders' (submitter view) and 'yearning_audit_order' (action).

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 for auditors viewing their related orders but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like 'yearning_audit_order' or 'yearning_my_orders'. No exclusion criteria or context for non-use.

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