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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so description carries the transparency burden. It discloses billing behavior (per data unit, capped by request) and is a read-only query, but does not mention any other behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or potential version mismatch handling (though version_mismatch is referenced in parameter schema). This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Core description is two sentences covering purpose, scope, exclusions, and usage examples—efficient and well-structured. The pricing snippet adds length but is necessary for transparency. Overall concise with no fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple query modes) and presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: data coverage, exclusions, and examples. It relies on schema for parameter details, and the output schema handles return values, so it's sufficiently complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed semantics (versions as soft date constraints, gov_names roles per query type, input_text with example queries). The description adds typical question patterns that reinforce input_text's meaning, slightly exceeding the schema baseline.

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 it queries land transaction and price macro indicators (土地成交与地价宏观指标), enumerates specific covered metrics (工业/商业/住宅用地成交面积、宗数、总价、单价), and explicitly excludes house price listings and enterprise count stats, distinguishing it from sibling gov_data_* 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?

Provides clear when-to-use context via typical queries (e.g., 某区工业用地成交单价, 土地成交面积TOP城市) and explicit exclusions (不含房价明细挂牌列表或企业数量主口径). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the exclusions effectively guide away from this tool for those cases, so it's adequately directive.

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