yearning_audit_orders

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful scoping (current user related, reviewer perspective) and pagination, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as default status filtering or response format implications. No contradiction with 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: the first states the purpose with scope and perspective, the second provides the API reference. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core function.

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 rich annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the resource, scoping, and API. However, it could explicitly mention the status filter options or contrast with 'yearning_my_orders' to aid selection, though this is not critical.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with text, status, and work_id documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on any parameters, only implying pagination through '分页' and giving the API endpoint. It does not compensate for the undocumented page, page_size, or response_format parameters.

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 it lists pending/reviewed orders for the current user as a reviewer, with a specific API endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'yearning_my_orders' by the '审核人视角' (reviewer perspective) scope.

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 context (reviewer perspective) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like 'yearning_my_orders' or mention any exclusion criteria. The context is provided through the phrase '审核人视角' but no direct comparison is made.

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