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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a detailed list of included indicators (失信限高、行政处罚、经营异常、欠税、许可撤销吊销等), explicit exclusions, and typical question forms. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a query tool with an output schema this is reasonably transparent.

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 longer than average but well-structured: purpose, included indicators, exclusions, typical questions, and pricing. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each section contributes to tool selection or invocation. The indicator list is extensive but useful; slight redundancy and the pricing block prevent a 5.

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 that an output schema exists, return-value details are already covered. The description provides comprehensive scope: included indicators, explicit exclusions, typical question formats, and pricing. With only two simple parameters and openWorldHint, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 brief parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples like '中国比亚迪股份有限公司' and '美国Tesla, Inc.', which clarify how country_name and company_name should be combined and formatted. It also reinforces that the query is by specific enterprise name rather than batch or category.

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 opens with '基于具体企业名称，按企业查询企业风险方面的周期变化', clearly identifying the verb (query), resource (enterprise risk periodic changes), and scope (by specific company). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by excluding natural-person risk checks, labor arbitration compliance, and batch screening by park/industry chain, and typical questions reinforce the exact use case.

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 clear when-to-use context: query enterprise risk changes for a specific company, with explicit exclusions such as '不用于关键自然人个人风险排查，也不用于劳动仲裁等合规诉讼专项' and '不包含：非本分类指标；按园区/产业链批量筛企业名单'. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools, but the exclusions and typical question patterns provide strong usage guidance.

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