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

描述中使用了'查询'等词汇暗示只读行为，但未明确说明无副作用或权限要求。注释仅有openWorldHint，未提供额外行为信息。因此行为透明度中等。

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?

描述包含用途、排除、指标、典型问法，结构合理，信息有用。虽稍长，但无冗余，整体简洁。

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?

描述覆盖了查询内容、指标类型、排除场景和示例，对于查询类工具足够完整。虽未说明输出格式，但无输出模式要求，上下文完整性良好。

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?

参数company_name和country_name在模式和描述中均有说明，且提供了示例。参数语义清楚，但描述未增加超出模式之外的额外细节，符合基线3分。

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?

描述明确说明了工具用于查询企业声誉品牌方面的周期变化，具体包括获奖数量、媒体舆情非负面占比等，与兄弟工具如enterprise_change_*系列区分明显。提供了典型问法，清晰度高。

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?

描述明确指出了不适用于媒体报道量、平台热度等知名度指标，并排除了非本分类指标和按园区/产业链批量筛企业名单，提供了使用边界。但未明确说明何时使用此工具，缺乏与其他工具的对比，指导性略有不足。

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