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

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses the fixed two-year window, the combined return of total/production/sales/dependent company lists, and excludes other classifications. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the output schema covers return structure sufficiently.

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 front-loaded with the core function, followed by included metrics, exclusions, and examples in a logical, scannable structure. The embedded Pricing block adds extra metadata but does not obscure the tool's purpose.

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 simple 3-parameter list query with an output schema available, the description provides enough behavioral and boundary information to select and invoke the tool correctly. Typical questions and the exclusion list close most gaps, though the exact handling of the optional year within the two-year window could be clearer.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, providing a high coverage baseline. The description adds practical meaning by clarifying region scopes (国家/省份/城市/区县), giving chain examples like 集成电路/新能源/人工智能, and showing realistic query phrasings. The year parameter's relation to '近两年' remains slightly 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 the tool's purpose: querying lists of companies that won tenders in the past two years by region and chain name. It also specifies the merged return types (总量/生产型/销售型/依赖型) and explicitly excludes count-only or other classifications, distinguishing it from related list/count siblings.

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 clear usage context with typical query examples and explicitly states what is not included, such as '仅返回数量不返回名单'. However, it does not explicitly name the count-only alternative (chain_won_tender_company_num), though the sibling tool name makes this obvious.

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