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

The description uses '查询' (query) implying a read-only operation, and lists what it is not used for, providing some scope transparency. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or data limitations. Since annotations lack readOnlyHint, the description carries the burden but falls short of fully specifying behavioral guarantees.

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 well-structured with clear sections: scope, included metrics, exclusions, and typical queries. It avoids unnecessary detail and directly conveys the tool's purpose and boundaries.

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 purpose, scope, exclusions, and typical queries, providing a clear picture of what the tool does. It does not specify the output format, but since an output schema exists (though not shown), it may be acceptable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a query tool.

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?

Both parameters (company_name, country_name) are already fully described in the input schema with examples. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond typical query examples, so it does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 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 employer brand periodic changes for a specific company, focusing on employee training duration, promotion rate, and turnover rate. It explicitly excludes recruitment and satisfaction/engagement evaluations, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like enterprise_change_employee_benefits or enterprise_change_employee_evaluation.

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?

It provides explicit exclusions (not for recruitment, not for satisfaction/engagement) and lists included metrics (training, promotion, turnover). This gives enough context to choose this tool over alternatives, though it could be more explicit about when to prefer it over other employee-related change tools.

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