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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description must carry the burden for read-only expectations and behavioral details. The description indicates it is a query ('查询') and enumerates exactly which indicators are covered, which is transparent about scope. However, it does not disclose whether results are historical, paginated, or have any other behavioral traits; it lacks explicit read-only confirmation or permission requirements. Given low annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 structured: purpose, indicator list, exclusions, and example questions. It is longer than necessary due to enumerating 12 indicators, but that list is essential to define scope and prevent misuse. Each section contributes to clarity, and the purpose is front-loaded. It earns a 4 for being organized and informative without excessive fluff.

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 complexity (12 indicators) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description sufficiently explains scope, exclusions, and usage via examples. It does not mention prerequisites beyond what the schema covers (e.g., valid country/company names) but that is already in the parameter descriptions. No critical gaps are evident.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (company_name and country_name), each with a description and example. The description adds example questions and reiterates the per-company query nature, but does not provide additional format or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the 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 the tool's function: based on a specific enterprise name, it queries cyclical changes in business operations regarding the establishment, cancellation, and stock of overseas branches and subsidiaries. It lists 12 specific indicators, making the scope precise and distinguishing it from investment/financing tools. The verb '查询' and resource (branch/subsidiary changes) are explicit.

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 explicitly states exclusions: '不用于对外股权投资或融资引入等投融资活动查询' and '不包含：非本分类指标；按园区/产业链批量筛企业名单', which helps the agent avoid using this tool for unrelated queries. It also provides typical question examples for context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the exclusions imply alternatives.

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