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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, which does not convey safety or side-effect information. The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has any destructive actions, or requires special permissions. It also does not mention pagination behavior beyond what the schema states, or what happens when no results are found. The description carries full responsibility for transparency and fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the purpose in a single sentence followed by a pricing detail. It avoids unnecessary fluff and directly communicates the core functionality and the type of data returned. The structure is effective for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and lists the fields returned, and the output schema exists so return format details are not required. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not address potential confusion with the similarly named sibling tool. It does not mention default pagination values or edge cases, but given the presence of a complete schema and output schema, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so all three parameters (page, limit, company_name) are adequately documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting rules or parameter relationships. It also does not elaborate on the default values or pagination logic beyond what the schema already includes, so it meets the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 that the tool queries court hearing announcements (开庭公告) for a specified enterprise name, listing the specific data fields returned. It uses a specific verb (查询) and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'company_session_announcement', which appears to serve a similar function, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as company_session_announcement or other company-related queries. The description only states what the tool does without any context for conditional usage or exclusions. It does not mention situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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