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

The description discloses the return format (merged text with counts for total and types) and the exclusions (other classifications, list details). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or default behavior for the optional year, and annotations only provide openWorldHint, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loading the core purpose, followed by exclusions and examples. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured, though it includes pricing info which is not essential 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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description covers the main aspects: what is returned, what is excluded, and typical usage examples. It does not clarify default behavior for the optional year, but examples show optionality, so completeness is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% as all three parameters (region, chain_name, year) have descriptions. The description adds typical questions that illustrate parameter values, but does not provide additional syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already offers. So a baseline score of 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 it queries the number of companies without patents in a specific region (country, province, city, district) and industrial chain, and returns combined text with total, production, sales, and dependent-type counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chain_have_patent_company_num by the explicit 'no patent' qualifier.

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 explicitly lists exclusions ('不包含') for other enterprise categories and company list details, implying when to use alternative tools for those needs. Typical questions (e.g., '2024年全国集成电路没有专利的企业有多少') illustrate when to use this tool, but alternatives are not named explicitly.

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