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

The description adds useful scope context, such as the exact policy indicators covered and exclusions, but it does not disclose behavioral details like temporal semantics of 'period changes', data freshness, or the open-world incompleteness hinted by annotations. It is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses organized sections for indicators, exclusions, and examples. It is slightly verbose and repeats the subsidy exclusion in different forms, with pricing metadata appended, preventing a 5.

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 two-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the query scope, included/excluded indicators, and provides typical user phrasings. Minor gaps remain around how 'period changes' are defined temporally and the open-world caveat, but these are not critical given the output schema.

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%, with both company_name and country_name already described and exemplified. The typical-question examples in the description add natural-language mapping but do not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 policy-compliance periodic changes for a specific company, covering domestic industry, capital, talent, tax, and regulatory new policies. It also explicitly excludes subsidy/fiscal-support queries and batch filtering by park or supply chain, which differentiates it from related sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it is for domestic policy-change inquiries and explicitly not for subsidy/financial-support status or batch screening by park/chain. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full 5.

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