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

The description lists the specific indicators covered (whether cooperation exists, types of cooperation) and exclusions. The openWorldHint annotation is present, and the description adds context about what's included/excluded. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond the annotation.

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 with clear sections: purpose, indicators, exclusions, and examples. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and provides useful examples. Slightly verbose with the indicator list but each item adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and examples. The output schema handles return value documentation. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (company_name and country_name) with examples. The description adds context about the query scope (specific company name) but doesn't add significant new meaning 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 cooperation brand-related periodic changes for a specific enterprise, focusing on industry-academia-research cooperation, R&D cooperation, and joint laboratories. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's not for querying university/research institution info and not for batch filtering by park/industry chain.

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 explicit usage context: use when querying a specific company's cooperation with universities/research institutions. It lists exclusions (not for university info, not for batch filtering) and gives typical query examples, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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