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

The description lacks behavioral transparency. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The annotation only includes openWorldHint (true) with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries the full burden. It also ambiguously mentions '周期变化' (periodic changes) but does not clarify if the tool returns current values or historical changes, leaving the behavior unclear.

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 verbose but well-structured, with sections for '涉及指标/类型', '不包含', and '典型问法'. It conveys necessary information without being excessively long, though it could be more concise by reducing repetition of '是否' patterns.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it includes, what it excludes, and provides typical usage examples. It lacks details about the output structure or potential edge cases, but given the available information, it is reasonably complete for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 descriptions for the two parameters (company_name and country_name) only provide examples and do not fully explain their semantics. The tool description adds no further explanation, relying on the schema's minimal coverage. Since schema coverage is 100% but only with examples, the baseline score is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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's function: querying classification attributes of enterprises (四上, 小微, 国资民资, 上市发债, 金融机构, etc.) based on a specific enterprise name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing included and excluded attribute types, making its 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for querying enterprise classification attributes, and when not to use it: not for operating status, registered capital, financing rounds, and not for batch screening by park/industry chain. It also includes typical questions (e.g., 'Is Tesla a small/micro enterprise?') that illustrate appropriate use cases.

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