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

The description lists the returned data fields (registration date, status, secured claim amount, registration authority, number), which adds useful behavior beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation. However, it doesn't disclose pagination defaults (though schema covers this), exact-match requirements, or result-count behaviors. No contradiction with annotations, but the description doesn't go far beyond field enumeration.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose before listing result fields. The pricing metadata is cleanly separated. It earns its place without redundancy, though the field list reads slightly list-like and could be trimmed without losing value.

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 query tool with 3 params, full schema coverage, and an output schema, this is reasonably complete. The description omits whether company_name requires the full registered name (though the example '通威股份有限公司' hints at it) and doesn't clarify if the search is exact or fuzzy. These are minor gaps for an otherwise standard query tool in a large sibling family.

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% — all three parameters (company_name, page, limit) are documented in the schema with types, defaults, and constraints. Per the rubric, high coverage (>80%) sets a baseline of 3. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but none is needed since the schema carries the weight.

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+resource (查询...动产抵押信息) and clearly lists the returned fields (登记日期、状态、被担保债权数额、登记机关、登记编号). While it's unambiguous and distinct from siblings like company_equity_pledge by name, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives. The Chinese description adds precision but no explicit sibling comparison.

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 implies usage ('基于明确指定的企业名称') — the agent knows it needs a specific, explicit enterprise name — but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many company_* siblings. The pagination semantics (page/limit) are mentioned only in the schema, not surfaced as guidance.

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