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

Beyond the minimal openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses the precise scope boundary by listing the three included metric categories and two exclusions. It does not contradict the annotation. However, the '周期变化' (periodic change) behavioral aspect—what time cycle or trend format is returned—remains undisclosed.

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 lengthier than average but well-organized into purpose, exclusions, and examples. Every section earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose sentence gives immediate clarity. Pricing details are embedded inline, slightly mixing concerns but remaining informative.

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?

With an output schema present and only two well-covered parameters, the description adequately scopes the tool against the large sibling set. It clarifies the difference from enterprise_change_policy_fiscal_support and other responsibility-domain tools. Minor gap: the time-series/periodic-change semantics and result structure are not elaborated, though the output schema partially covers this.

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% with both parameters well-documented including examples. The description's typical usage examples (中国比亚迪股份有限公司, 美国Tesla, Inc.) reinforce the parameter formats but add only marginal value beyond the schema, which already demonstrates acceptable naming for country_name and company_name.

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 a specific verb+resource (query charity responsibility change cycles by specific company) and enumerates the covered metrics (donation amounts including money/goods, public welfare project investment, beneficiary groups). It explicitly excludes other categories, distinguishing it from adjacent sibling tools like enterprise_change_env_responsibility and enterprise_change_policy_fiscal_support.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: states it must NOT be used for government subsidy/fiscal support queries, does not include non-category indicators or batch park/industry-chain filtering. Typical question examples demonstrate the correct invocation pattern, making the when-to-use/when-not-to-use distinction unambiguous.

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