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

Annotations are minimal (only openWorldHint), so description carries the burden. It explains the scope, included metrics, and exclusions, and implies a read-only query (查询). No contradictions with annotations. Does not discuss side effects, but for a query tool this is sufficient. Slight lack of explicit statement on read-only nature, but acceptable.

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 well-structured: purpose statement, exclusions, included metrics, typical questions, and pricing. It is not overly verbose and each section adds value. Slightly long but all information is relevant and helps disambiguate.

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, return values need not be explained. The tool is well-scoped and competes with many sibling tools, but this description clearly differentiates itself. It provides enough context on what it queries and typical use cases. Missing minor details like whether it covers historical trends, but '周期变化' implies periodic changes.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (company_name and country_name). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, such as format or constraints. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying periodic changes in public opinion about executives for a specific company, covering abnormal social updates, scandals, and negative sentiment. It explicitly distinguishes from executive changes and general company-level opinions, and provides typical question formats, making it highly specific and uniquely identifiable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (for executive sentiment inquiries) and when not to use (not for executive position changes, not for general company opinions, not for non-category indicators, or batch filtering by park/chain). Includes typical question examples for clarity, making it exceptionally clear for the agent.

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