yearning_order_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it retrieves paginated SQL details, complete SQL statements, and execution result records, and that it corresponds to two GET endpoints. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not disclose rate limits or merge logic.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every clause provides relevant information, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is efficient 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?

The tool is a read-only detail query with an output schema provided, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers the main content returned and the pagination behavior, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It could optionally mention the response_format parameter, but the schema already defines its default and enum.

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 only 25% (only work_id has a description). The description mentions pagination, which gives meaning to page and page_size, but it does not explain the response_format parameter or how it affects the output. Since coverage is low, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for some 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 starts with '查看工单详情' (view work order details) and enumerates the specific content: SQL details (paginated), full SQL statements, and execution result records. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'yearning_my_orders' (list orders) and 'yearning_order_timeline' (view timeline). It also maps to two concrete API endpoints, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool: when you need detailed SQL and execution results for a specific work order. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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