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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, so the description must convey behavioral details. It explains that it returns a combined text of total/production/sales/dependent types, and explicitly lists exclusions. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient.

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 verbose and includes extraneous pricing metadata that is not part of the tool's purpose. While it is well-structured with sections for inclusions, exclusions, and examples, the pricing text distracts and could be removed. It is not concise, though it is organized.

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 the tool has an output schema and only 3 parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: it states the purpose, inputs, what is returned, what is excluded, and provides examples. It is fully adequate for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 already describes the three parameters (year, region, chain_name) with 100% coverage. The description adds useful context by mentioning the default two-year lookback, optionality of year, and providing examples of valid region and chain_name values. This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 that the tool queries a list of enterprises that initiated tenders in the past two years based on specific regions and industrial chain names. It also distinguishes itself from the count-only sibling 'chain_issued_tender_company_num' by explicitly saying it returns lists, not counts. Examples clarify the intended use.

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 states what is not included (other classifications and counts) and provides typical question examples, making it obvious when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of the count sibling further reinforces the distinction, and the description explicitly says it does not return counts.

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