szlcsc_parametric_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The description implies a filtering/querying behavior but does not disclose whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It does not describe the output format or pagination behavior. The tool likely performs a read-only search, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose. The example is directly relevant to the most complex parameter. However, the description could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the example, and it uses Chinese characters which may not be universally accessible.

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 complexity (8 parameters, required nested object, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. The output schema is provided but not referenced in the description. The description covers only the constraints parameter without explaining others. The tool is moderately complex but the description does not fully prepare the agent for correct invocation.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. The description only explains the 'constraints' parameter with an example, which is helpful. However, there are 7 other parameters (brand, query, package, in_stock, max_price, fetch_pool, max_results) that are not described at all. The example provides some meaning for constraints, but the overall parameter semantics are poorly documented.

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 '参数化选型' (parametric selection/search) which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like szlcsc_search (generic search) and szlcsc_find_alternatives (alternative finding). However, it could be more explicit about the domain (e.g., electronic components).

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 provides a usage example of the constraints parameter, showing how to format filtering criteria. However, it does not explain when to use this tool vs. szlcsc_search or szlcsc_find_alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites like required fields or common use cases. The example is helpful but not comprehensive.

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