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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the data is public (公开), implying a read-only listing over open data, and it clarifies the fit=1 filter's intent. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, rate limits, or freshness, which are the remaining behavioral traits an agent would want for a search endpoint.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads what the tool returns before listing the filters; nothing is padded. It is appropriately sized, though the fit=1 clause could have been folded more cleanly rather than left as a trailing fragment.

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 a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only part of what an agent needs: it explains three filters and skips paging (limit/offset) and the status filter's behavior. Meaningful but incomplete for the tool's actual surface.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description usefully names the filterable dimensions (category/region/keyword) and expands fit=1 beyond the schema's terse 只看小微友好单 into 'small orders suitable for a one-person company'. It adds no meaning for limit/offset/status, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: 政府采购商机线索（公开）, i.e. public government-procurement leads, and states that results can be filtered by category/region/keyword. That is clearly distinguishable from the other soloteam_* siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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?

It implies when a filter is useful by explaining that fit=1 restricts results to small orders suited to a one-person company, which is a genuine usage hint for a solo-operator audience. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so guidance remains implicit.

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