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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that it returns combined text for four list types, fixes the time scope to two years, and explicitly excludes other categories and count-only results. It doesn't mention things like pagination/rate limits, but relevant behavioral boundaries are conveyed clearly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, included metrics, exclusions, and examples. It contains some redundancy in enumerating the four list types twice, but remains efficient and readable.

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 output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully described, the overall description is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool. The main remainder is clarity around how 'year' relates to the two-year window, and no explicit pointer to the count-only sibling tool.

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 examples. The description adds useful context by specifying accepted region levels (country, province, city, district) and giving concrete values like '全国', '成都', and '北京市海淀区'. The interaction between 'year' and the '近两年' filter remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 this tool lists companies that participated in tenders in the last two years, filtered by specific region and chain name. It explicitly mentions returning merged text for total/production/sales/dependent types, and the name plus content distinguishes it from related count-only or other tender-status tools.

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?

Typical question examples clearly illustrate when to use the tool, and the '不包含' section clarifies what is excluded. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like the count-only 'chain_participated_tender_company_num' or related 'won_tender'/'issued_tender' list tools.

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