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

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral constraints: it requires a specific address (not a city name), supports only Chinese locations, and returns aggregate indices rather than detailed lists. It also lists excluded content (e.g., specific entity names, prices). This added transparency helps set expectations for output and input limitations.

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 dense but logically structured: function statement, metric types, exclusions, and example queries. While it is relatively long, it packs essential information without unnecessary fluff. The structure aids readability, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 description covers the purpose, parameters, output types (star ratings, indices), and exclusions, and gives examples. It does not provide an explicit output schema, but the description sufficiently outlines the nature of results. Given the tool's complexity, this is complete enough for a user to understand its scope.

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 schema descriptions for both parameters are thorough: 'city' must be a prefecture-level Chinese city without the '市' suffix, and 'address' must be a specific, geolocatable point with examples and exclusions. The tool description reinforces these constraints. This provides complete semantic clarity beyond the schema.

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's function: querying surrounding amenity analysis for a specific address in China, returning star ratings and configuration indices for education, medical, shopping, transportation, etc. It also distinguishes from listing specific entities and provides typical question examples. This is highly specific and informative.

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 includes typical user queries and clarifies what the tool does not include, which helps set usage context. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative sibling tools (e.g., POI-specific tools) or provide explicit 'when to use this vs. that' guidance. Still, the examples and exclusions offer practical usage hints.

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