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

The description uses '查询' (query), indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. However, annotations only include openWorldHint and lack readOnly/destructive hints, so the description partially compensates by implying non-destructive behavior. It does not mention additional behaviors like rate limits or data freshness.

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 somewhat repetitive, listing the same HR indicators twice (once in the main sentence and once in the '涉及指标/类型' section). This redundancy adds length without new information, making it less concise than ideal.

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?

Given the large family of enterprise_change_* tools, the description effectively scopes its use case by enumerating covered topics and exclusions. It lacks output schema details, but since no output schema is provided, that is not required. Overall, it provides sufficient context for selection.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds the detail '具体企业名称' (specific enterprise name), clarifying the expected input granularity, which enhances parameter understanding 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 states the tool queries enterprise changes related to human resources, listing specific topics (new hires, remote recruitment, R&D/tech positions, sales/marketing, management). It explicitly excludes unrelated employer brand indicators, providing clear differentiation from sibling 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 both positive usage (when to use: for specific HR activities) and negative usage (not for compensation, benefits, etc.). This explicitly guides the agent on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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