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

注解仅openWorldHint:true，描述补充了版本不一致时的标注行为（version_mismatch）和定价信息，但未说明读取权限、返回结构等。由于输出schema存在且描述有限，部分行为需依赖schema推断。

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?

描述简洁，前两句清晰覆盖范围和典型问法，定价部分虽长但属必要信息，整体结构合理，无冗余。

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?

有输出schema，描述已说明覆盖范围、排除项、版本标注，并提供典型问法，足以支持agent选择调用。售价信息可能额外消耗注意力，但不影响完整性。

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?

输入schema对每个参数（versions, gov_names, input_text）提供了详细描述，覆盖率达100%，描述本身未额外补充参数语义，仅依赖schema即可满足需求，符合基线3。

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?

明确声明查询地区生态环境宏观指标，列举覆盖范围（空气质量、优良天数、地表水等级、环保治理统计），并排除舆情和POI，清晰区分了兄弟工具（如gov_data_public_opinion, gov_data_poi_amenity）。动词'查询'与资源直接对应。

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?

描述提供了典型问法示例，并明确指出'不含舆情热度（请用舆情主题）'，给出了排除和替代方向。虽然未与其他gov_data工具逐一对比，但已足够指导使用场景。

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