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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation by detailing the exact indicators covered (e.g., number of legal rep changes, types of actual controller, litigation status) and explicitly stating what it does not include. It does not contradict the annotation and provides a clear scope of behavior, though it does not disclose response format or rate limits, which are adequately handled by the output schema and annotations.

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 a clear front-loaded purpose statement, followed by exclusions and a detailed indicator list, and ending with typical queries. Although lengthy, every sentence contributes useful information for tool selection and usage. It is more detailed than strictly necessary but not redundant, earning a high score.

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 complexity (multiple indicators, exclusions, examples) and the presence of an output schema, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and provides concrete examples, eliminating ambiguity about when and how to use this tool. The description fully addresses the agent's needs without relying on external documentation.

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% for both parameters (company_name and country_name). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it provides examples in typical questions but these only reinforce the schema descriptions. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 a specific verb+resource: '按企业查询企业风险方面的周期变化' (query periodic changes in enterprise risk) for specific roles (legal representative, controlling shareholder, actual controller). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by excluding enterprise's own violations and providing a non-exhaustive list of indicators it covers, making it 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for key personnel risk changes, and explicitly states it is NOT for enterprise's own violations or batch screening by park/industry chain. It also gives typical questions (e.g., '中国比亚迪股份有限公司法定代表人变更过几次') to illustrate appropriate usage, and clarifies exclusions with '不包含' sections.

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