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

注释仅提供openWorldHint，描述说明查询的是“周期变化”但未明确返回格式、分页或权限要求。虽然有输出schema补充，但描述本身对行为细节披露有限，未与注释矛盾。

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?

描述结构清晰，采用分点列出包含指标、不包含项和典型问法，首句直接点明功能，无冗余，符合最佳实践。

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?

有输出schema，描述无需解释返回，但工具涉及多种指标，描述已具体列举，并提供典型问法，足以支持正确使用，完整度良好。

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100%，参数company_name和country_name在schema中已有描述，描述中提供了示例值但没有额外解释参数语义，基线3分，未显著增补。

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?

描述明确指定了动词“查询”和资源“企业声誉品牌周期变化”，并列举了具体指标（获奖数量、媒体舆情健康度等），与兄弟工具如enterprise_change_reputation_awareness等清楚区分，且说明了不包含的内容。

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?

明确说明使用场景（按企业查询声誉品牌周期变化）和不适用场景（媒体报道量、平台热度），并提供了典型问法，但未直接列举替代工具，不过通过不包含项间接区分了其他工具。

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