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

Annotations include openWorldHint=true, and description does not contradict it. It adds details on what indicators are covered (e.g., whether international R&D projects are affected, team distribution) but does not disclose data source, update frequency, or limitations. With only openWorldHint, it provides some context but not comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 relatively concise, with a clear structure: purpose, exclusions, covered indicators, and typical questions. It front-loads the key purpose. Slight redundancy in listing indicators and examples, but each contributes to clarity. No wasted sentences.

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 complexity of the tool (specific domain of international cooperation), the description covers what users need: purpose, indication of output via examples, exclusions, and typical questions. The output schema exists, so return values are not explained but that's okay. Could mention data sources or response format, but overall adequate.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (company_name and country_name) including examples. The description reinforces parameter usage by giving typical questions with example values (e.g., '中国比亚迪股份有限公司'). No additional semantics beyond schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries cooperative brand periodic changes for international cooperation R&D, cross-border team distribution, and countries/regions involved, with specific examples. It distinguishes from import/export compliance and policy impact tools, and the sibling list includes many enterprise_change_* tools but this one's focus on '国际' cooperation is explicit.

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?

Explicitly says '不用于进出口贸易合规或外贸政策冲击排查' and provides typical question examples for when to use. It also lists what is not included (non-category indicators, batch filtering by park/chain) and alternatives are implied by sibling tools like enterprise_change_external_policy. Strong guidance.

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