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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries significant behavioral load. It discloses the exact indicator types covered, explicitly excludes non-matching indicators and aggregate list filtering, and provides representative questions. It does not add detail about data freshness or result granularity, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 efficiently structured with category separation: core purpose, supported indicators, exclusions, and example questions. Each section earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition. It remains compact despite covering multiple aspects.

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 output schema present, the description is complete: it explains the exact object sought, differentiates from sibling tools, gives parameter examples, and states explicit boundaries. The pricing block adds operational context. No critical behavioral or scope information is missing.

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 already 100%, and the schema clearly explains company_name and country with examples. The description strengthens understanding by providing concrete usage examples (比亚迪, Tesla, etc.) and specifying the query is based on a specific enterprise name, adding practical invocation context beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific query action ('查询') over government-enterprise relationship changes, with explicit resource targets: receiving local/other-region government inspections and visiting external government agencies. It also differentiates itself from fiscal support/subsidy tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (querying government visit/exchange interactions by a specific enterprise) and provides strong when-not guidance ('not for subsidies/tax benefits', 'not for batch screening by park/industry chain'). It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, but the exclusions are clear enough.

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