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

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description adds pricing information (0.2 credits per run) and a long list of information dimensions returned. However, it omits behavioral details like exact-match requirements, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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: a clear first sentence states the purpose, then lists the fields, and ends with pricing. While the field list is lengthy, it is informative and not redundant. The overall structure is 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 tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, what data it returns, and the cost. It lacks notes on error handling or edge cases (e.g., company not found), but is adequate for typical usage.

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 one parameter (company_name) is fully documented in the input schema with description, required flag, and an example. The description largely repeats the requirement ('基于明确指定的企业名称') without adding new semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 action (query) and resource (enterprise) based on a specified name, and enumerates the comprehensive set of basic information fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like shareholders or patents. The verb '查询' (query) is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, such as using company_shareholder for shareholder details or company_patent for patents. The user must infer that this is for general basic info, but no explicit usage context is offered.

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