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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the return includes merged text for total/production/sales/dependent types, and excludes other categories. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, result limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. The annotation openWorldHint=true is not contradicted, and the description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by inclusions/exclusions and examples. The pricing info is extra but useful. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the pricing block could be considered extraneous for tool selection.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 2 required, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, what it excludes, and typical usage. The output schema handles return structure. It could mention result limits or pagination, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (year, region, chain_name) with descriptions. The description adds example values and clarifies the region granularity (country, province, city, district) and chain name examples, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 queries company lists by specific region (country, province, city, district) and specific industry chain name, returning merged totals for total/production/sales/dependent types. It explicitly lists what's included and excluded, and provides typical query examples, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like chain_company_num (which only returns counts).

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for company list queries by region and chain) and explicitly states what it does NOT include (other company category statistics, only returns counts without names). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the exclusions help the agent understand boundaries. Typical question examples further guide usage.

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