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

Annotations include openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the important detail that it returns merged text for multiple indicator types (总量/生产型/销售型/依赖型). However, no additional behavioral constraints (e.g., exact return structure, auth, rate limits) are disclosed beyond that. The description is consistent with the annotations, no contradiction.

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 main purpose, followed by exclusions and examples. The pricing information is embedded but that is extra metadata. The examples are useful but slightly verbose; still, overall it's efficient.

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 of a tool that returns merged text for multiple indicator types, the description covers the main use cases, exclusions, and provides examples. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description need not explain that. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description repeats the region and chain_name parameters but adds nothing beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no syntax for format like '全国' or combined regions). It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 it queries company lists with software copyrights based on region and industry chain, and lists specific indicators/types. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the copyright filter and excluding other categories, though it could better differentiate from the *_num variant (chain_have_copyright_company_num) which returns only 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 includes '不包含：其他企业分类的统计；仅返回数量不返回名单' which explicitly states what the tool does not do, and provides typical question examples to illustrate usage. It implies when to use this tool (when needing the list, not just counts) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives like chain_have_copyright_company_num.

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