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

The description implies a read-only query operation (using '查询'), but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify data or that it is safe. With no readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries the burden but only implies non-destructive behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for indicators, exclusions, and examples. It avoids redundancy and stays focused, though it could be slightly more succinct by merging repeated phrases.

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 provides sufficient context: it explains the tool's scope, lists what it covers and excludes, and gives typical queries. It does not describe the output format, but since no output schema is provided, that is not required. Overall, it gives a complete picture 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (company_name and country_name), and the description repeats their meanings without adding significant new details. The typical question examples illustrate usage but do not further clarify parameter constraints or formats.

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 purpose: to query periodic changes in user brand satisfaction by company. It explicitly lists the indicators covered (customer satisfaction, after-sales satisfaction, complaint rate, product safety accident rate) and excludes others (market share, brand awareness), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 by stating what it is not for (market share, brand awareness) and what it does not include (non-category indicators, batch screening by park/industry chain). It offers clear boundaries, though it does not directly reference alternative tools.

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