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

描述提到了指标类型和“近一年”的时间范围，但未说明数据来源、更新频率、权限要求或响应结构。由于注解仅有openWorldHint，描述承担了行为披露责任，但提供的信息仍有限，仅是具体查询内容而非底层行为。未与注解矛盾。

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?

描述较长但结构清晰：概述、具体指标列表、排除项、典型问法。每个部分都有价值，没有冗余，但长度可能影响快速阅读，对复杂工具而言可接受。

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?

考虑到工具复杂性和多种指标类型，描述列出了具体的指标细目和典型问法，增强了上下文理解。系统提供了输出schema，描述无需解释返回值结构。整体足够全面，但未提及错误处理或数据范围限制。

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?

输入schema覆盖率为100%，两个参数（company_name、country_name）已在schema中描述清楚。描述中典型问法提供了示例值但未增加额外参数语义，因此维持基线3。

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?

描述明确说明该工具按企业查询经营活动中的中标、发标和投标合作情况，具体动词+资源清晰。同时明确区分了不用于查询招标文件或全市场企业名单，与其用途区别明显。典型问法进一步展示了具体场景，目的非常明确。

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?

描述明确列出了不包含的内容（非本分类指标、按园区/产业链批量筛企业名单），并指出不适用于招标文件查询和全市场企业名单，提供了清晰的when-not。但未显式提及替代工具名称（如company_tenderbid等），缺少alternative信息。

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