yearning_submit_query_order

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that approval is needed before running the query. It does not detail submission outcome (e.g., order creation, response) or error conditions. Output schema may cover response, but description itself lacks behavioral depth.

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 concise with two sentences: purpose and API endpoint. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the API line is somewhat extraneous.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's role in the workflow, including the prerequisite condition. Sibling tools like yearning_audit_orders complete the context. Minor lacking: no mention of error handling or permissions.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (source_id, remark, etc.) with explicit details. The tool description does not add parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate. Context signal 'schema_description_coverage: 0%' appears erroneous; actual coverage is 100%.

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 submits a data query application and is a prerequisite for yearning_run_query when review is enabled. The title '提交查询申请' aligns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other sibling tools like yearning_submit_order.

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 when query review is enabled, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The context of review flow is provided but not comprehensive.

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