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

Annotations include only openWorldHint, which provides minimal safety context. The description adds that the query requires an explicit company name and lists the fields returned, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination behavior beyond implicit schema fields. Overall, the description offers moderate added context beyond what annotations provide.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It includes an example and lists core return fields, with no unnecessary elaboration. Pricing information is appended but is not verbose. Structure is clear 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 query tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope (company inspection records) and includes common pagination parameters. It lacks explicit mention of default sorting or filter behavior, but given the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for basic invocation. It could benefit from a hint that it returns a list, but it's not critical.

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 all three parameters with clear descriptions (company_name, page, limit), achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces that company_name is required and mentions 'specified company name', but adds no additional parameter semantics. At high coverage, a baseline score of 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 tool queries inspection records (抽查检查信息) for a specific company, listing the types of fields returned (inspector, inspection type, date, result). This distinguishes it from other company_* tools such as company_punish or company_illegal, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 retrieving inspection data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other company-related tools or any exclusionary criteria. There is no mention of alternatives, and the context of sibling tools is not leveraged.

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