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

描述补充了查询涉及的指标范围和排除项，且与openWorldHint标注不矛盾。但没有说明返回结构或副作用（尽管有输出模式），且描述未提及权限或限制。在存在标注和输出模式的情况下，描述提供了中等水平的额外信息。

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?

描述结构清晰，开头点明用途，随后列出包含和不包含的指标，最后给出典型问法。内容简洁，但“不包含”部分某些表述（如“非本分类指标”）稍显冗余，整体仍高效。

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?

给定工具复杂度适中，且有输出模式和完整schema，描述提供了必要的使用场景和排除项，足以指导正确调用。但未与相近兄弟工具（如employee_development）直接比较，稍微降低了完整性。

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?

输入模式中两个参数均已描述，schema覆盖100%。描述提供了典型问法示例（如“中国比亚迪股份有限公司员工满意度”），展示了参数如何组合使用，增加了实际用途的说明，但未超出schema已有的描述。

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?

描述明确使用动词“查询”并指定资源为员工满意度、敬业度和忠诚度，且以企业名称为基础。这清晰区分了此工具与兄弟工具（如enterprise_change_employee_development）的功能，属于特定动词+资源+范围，并提供了典型问法示例，与高效示例一致。

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?

描述了明确的用途（查询雇主品牌周期变化）和明确的不适用场景（培训晋升离职等发展类指标），并列举了“不包含”的内容。虽然没有直接引用替代工具，但通过排除法提供了使用场景的清晰边界。

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