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

Annotations only include openWorldHint:true, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides valuable context: the requirement for an explicit company name, the returned fields (case number, court, dates, judges, parties, status), and pricing (0.2 credits per run). It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but the field list and cost note add real substance beyond the annotation.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by a concise field list and a separate pricing line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, required input, and return fields. It lacks explicit usage guidance vs alternatives, but the combination of schema, output schema, and description is mostly sufficient for correct 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?

The input schema already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (company_name, page, limit), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does emphasize that company_name must be explicit, which is useful but marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not meaningfully complement it.

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 clear resource '立案信息' (filing information), and enumerates the fields returned (case number, court, dates, judges, parties, status). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like company_judgement, but the resource and field set are specific enough that the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 states the input condition ('基于明确指定的企业名称') and the data returned, implying use when filing case details are needed. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, which is a notable gap given the large number of sibling company_* tools that could overlap.

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