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

With only openWorldHint as annotation, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the output is a merged text with total/production/sales/dependent counts, and explicitly excludes certain data. It also includes pricing metadata. It lacks details on error behavior or rate limits, but given the tool's simple nature, this is adequate.

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 structured into a clear definition, includes/excludes, and examples. It is longer than necessary but each section adds value. The pricing block is an extra but clearly separated. Overall front-loaded and scannable.

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-param tool with output schema, the description is complete: it defines the query scope, explains return types, excludes other data, and provides usage examples. No gaps that would confuse an agent. The inclusion of pricing and billing model is an added completeness bonus.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds typical question examples illustrating parameter usage but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema. Year is noted as optional in schema and implied in examples. Baseline 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 the tool queries specialized innovative company counts by specific regions and industry chain names, returning aggregated totals for production/sales/dependent types. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying the '专精特新' (specialized) classification, which is unique among similar chain_*_company_num 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?

The description provides typical question examples that imply when to use the tool, and clearly lists inclusions/exclusions (e.g., not including other categories or company lists). It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the scope and examples sufficiently guide usage.

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