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

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses useful behavior: it returns combined text for total/production/sales/dependent categories, excludes other company category statistics, and does not return the actual name list. There is no annotation contradiction, but the repeated use of '企业列表' conflicts with the 'no list' clause, making the output format somewhat ambiguous.

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 organized into purpose, metric types, exclusions, and typical questions, making it easy to scan. It contains some redundancy in the repeated '近两年参与过投标的企业列表' enumeration and an appended pricing block, but the core description is still efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it provides required context around region, chain, and examples. However, the ambiguity between returning a list vs. returning only quantities, plus the undefined relationship between `year` and the 'near two years' window, leaves important gaps for an agent selecting and invoking 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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual examples for region and chain_name and mentions the two-year window, but it does not explain how the optional `year` parameter interacts with the '近两年' condition, leaving real meaning uncertainty.

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 identifies the resource and verb: querying companies that participated in bidding by region, industry chain, and a two-year window. It also gives examples that differentiate it from related tender tools. However, it is internally inconsistent about whether it returns an actual company list or only counts, saying '企业列表' while also saying '仅返回不返回名单'.

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 gives clear context and typical examples for when to use the tool, such as country/city + industry chain + bid participation. It does not explicitly compare with the sibling `chain_participated_tender_company_num` or other tender-related tools, and the 'only count, no list' statement is more an output restriction than a usage guideline.

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