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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose meaningful behavior: anonymous callability, the external tenant whitelist, the internal-only partnerid, the default radius, and which brand is used when vendorids has multiple entries. It does not describe the response shape, result limits, or error behavior when no criterion is matched.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a numbered list of modes and then caveats — efficient and scannable. The trailing ontology tag ('本体: vendor → Action: list') and bracketed callable marker add little for an invoking agent.

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?

For an 8-parameter, annotation-free lookup tool, the description covers invocation strategy, defaults, and access constraints well. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, it never says what a result entry contains (store fields, distance, pagination), which an agent needs to plan the call.

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%, yet the description accounts for all eight parameters and explains the grouping logic that the schema cannot express: hospitalCode vs lon/lat vs province/city/district are mutually alternative selectors, radius applies only to the geographic mode, and vendorids behaves as a filter within a mode. That is exactly the compensation required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (query store addresses) and enumerates the three lookup modes. It also names vendor_brands as the prerequisite/alternative, so the agent can separate this from sibling list tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: at least one of three call shapes must be supplied, radius defaults to 50000, vendorids only narrows within a chosen mode, and vendor_brands should be called first when brand/city coverage is unknown. It also states the external-caller restriction to health100/haolaruici and that partnerid is internal-only.

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