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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation: it discloses pricing (30 credits per run), scope of returned indicators, and the fact that it tracks periodic change (周期变化). It also states exclusions that shape behavior. No contradiction with 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 clear sections for included indicators, exclusions, and example queries, and includes pricing in a compact block. It is efficient, though the first sentence is slightly ambiguous about the relationship between '合作品牌' and the listed indicators, preventing a perfect 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 two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient for a complex tool with many siblings. It provides purpose, exclusions, examples, and cost, but the meaning of 'strength evaluation' and its relationship to '合作品牌' could be clearer, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with both company_name and country_name already described with examples. The description reinforces these with typical questions but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 queries enterprise strength evaluation data (行业地位, 认证资质, 信用等级) by company name, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by listing explicit exclusions ('不用于认证取得年份或牌照明细等资质认证专项') and provides three concrete example queries.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance via typical questions and clearly states what is excluded, including specialized certification details and park/industry chain batch screening. It does not name specific sibling tools, only categories of alternatives, so it falls just short of full explicitness.

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