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

Beyond the single openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses the query's scope (companies with external financing in the last two years), the merged output composition (total/production/sales/dependent categories), and what is not included. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth, but the 'query' framing and list-return scope make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the structure—scope, included indicators, exclusions, and example queries—is easy to scan. The '涉及指标/类型' section repeats the same criterion across four category variants, adding slight redundancy, but the overall length is still reasonable.

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 is self-sufficient for tool selection and invocation: it defines the scope, output composition, explicit exclusions, and concrete example queries. Since an output schema exists, detailed return-field documentation is unnecessary, and the description compensates well for the minimal annotation set.

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% and parameter descriptions already include examples, but the description adds meaning by defining region levels (country/province/city/district), clarifying chain_name as an industry-chain/node name, and explaining the core 'external financing in the last two years' filter. This goes beyond the bare 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 queries a list of companies with external financing in the last two years by specific region and industry chain. It also distinguishes this list tool from count-only siblings by explicitly saying it returns lists and does not return 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?

It provides clear usage context: region granularity (country/province/city/district), chain name, and typical user questions for scenarios like national, city, and district queries. It states exclusions—other enterprise classifications and count-only outputs—but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as chain_invested_company_num.

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