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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, lacking readOnly or destructive hints. The description does not mention any side effects, data freshness, permission requirements, or whether the query is read-only. Since the description carries the transparency burden in the absence of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 main description is concise, using two sentences to convey scope, exclusions, and examples. However, it includes a separate 'Pricing:' section which, while informative, is unrelated to functional guidance and slightly dilutes focus. Overall structure is acceptable.

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 covers the main use cases and constraints, and the existence of an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true') mitigates the need to explain return values. It does not address potential edge cases like empty results or data availability, but these are secondary.

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?

The schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter: versions as soft constraint, gov_names with role based on query type, and input_text explaining intent and supported operations. This aligns well with the tool description's context, though the description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's function: querying regional enterprise/individual/listed company stock indicators, and explicitly lists covered indicators (registered count, density, industry proportion, average capital) and exclusions (new registrations/deregistrations). It also provides typical query examples, making the purpose highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like gov_data_enterprise_change.

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 usage context by stating typical question types and explicitly directing users to '市场主体异动' (gov_data_enterprise_change) for new registrations/deregistrations, which serves as a when-not-to-use hint. However, it does not enumerate all alternative tools or broader selection criteria, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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