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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, leaving the description to convey behavioral context. It indicates a read-only query operation ('查询') and adds extra context such as pricing per run. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, limitations, or that it is non-destructive, though the query nature and lack of destructive indications are acceptable for this simple tool.

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 stating the core purpose and returned fields, followed by a pricing line. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, three params total, output schema present), the description provides adequate context: purpose and key outputs. It could benefit from clarifying when to use this tool over similar siblings, but overall the description is complete for a simple query tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (company_name, page, limit). The description only reiterates that company_name is required, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 whether a specified company has records as an executed person (被执行人), listing specific fields like case number, enforcement amount, court, status, and filing date. The verb '查询' and the specific resource (company execution records) make the purpose distinct from sibling tools like company_judgement.

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 for checking a company's enforcement records, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent could infer context from the description, but there is no clear differentiation or exclusion.

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