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

The query wording and explicit inclusions/exclusions give useful behavioral context, but the description does not mention data currency, time-range behavior, or result limitations beyond the scope lists. With annotations only providing openWorldHint, the description carries most of the burden and covers it only partially.

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 organized into clear purpose, inclusion, exclusion, and example sections, with useful typical questions. It is slightly repetitive in re-listing the same policy categories, but the structure keeps it reasonably efficient.

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 adequately covers scope, exclusions, and example invocations. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools like enterprise_change_external_policy, but the explicit '国内' scope and exclusions are sufficient for most selection contexts.

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 already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds example phrasings such as '中国比亚迪股份有限公司是否有行业新政策' but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already declares.

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 states a specific verb+resource: '按企业查询政策合规方面的周期变化' and enumerates exact policy domains (industry, funding, talent, tax, regulation). It explicitly excludes subsidy queries and batch park/chain filtering, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like enterprise_change_policy_fiscal_support and chain/park list 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 provides clear when-to-use context by listing intended indicator categories and typical question formats. It also states what it is not for (subsidies, batch filtering), but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of fully explicit guidance.

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