yearning_order_detail

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing that the tool calls two API endpoints (GET /api/v2/fetch/detail and GET /api/v2/fetch/sql) and returns paginated SQL details, complete SQL, and execution records. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description complements without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an API line. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (two APIs, pagination, multiple output types) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main content (SQL details, complete SQL, execution records) and API mapping. It omits pagination parameter details and response_format, but the schema and output schema likely cover those. A slight improvement would be mentioning that pagination is controlled by page and page_size.

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 description does not explain any parameters. Despite schema providing a description for 'work_id' (工单号), the context indicates 0% schema description coverage from the tool description. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on input usage.

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's purpose: viewing order details including SQL details (pagination), complete SQL statements, and execution result records. It specifies the verb '查看' (view) and resource '工单详情' (order details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like yearning_order_timeline or yearning_my_orders.

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 use when retrieving details of a specific work order but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yearning_order_timeline or yearning_rollback_sql. No exclusions or context-specific conditions are mentioned.

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