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

The description conveys a read-only query operation and lists the data fields returned, which is adequate given the absent readOnly annotation. However, it does not explain the open-world implications of the openWorldHint annotation (e.g., no results does not necessarily mean no subsidies exist), nor does it add coverage/recency context. The included pricing is useful but not behavioral disclosure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key return attributes, followed by compact pricing metadata. It is concise, scannable, and contains no redundant or vague filler.

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 straightforward query tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential use case and return fields sufficiently. It could be more complete by explicitly noting the open-world limitation and contrasting with the can-apply subsidy sibling, but it is adequate for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents company_name, page, and limit with examples and defaults. The description adds only minor emphasis on an 'explicitly specified' company name and does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('查询', query) and a specific resource ('该企业已获批的政策补贴信息', the company's approved policy subsidy information), while enumerating key output fields such as project name, type, level, reward, and year. The qualifier '已获批' (approved) clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool company_can_apply_subsidy, which would target subsidies a company could apply for.

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 clearly states the precondition: use it when a specific/explicit company name is provided ('基于明确指定的企业名称'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as directing users to company_can_apply_subsidy for non-approved/eligible subsidies, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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