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

Annotations are sparse (only openWorldHint), so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral limitation (no specific store names/coordinates) and includes pricing/charging details (credits per data unit), which is valuable operational context. However, it stops short of describing other behaviors like authentication or rate limits, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: a precise purpose, a list of covered POI categories, an explicit non-scope statement, a pointer to alternative tools, and a clearly separated pricing block. The structure is scannable, and the content is immediately useful.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well-described, the tool description adds complete contextual guidance: usage scenarios, exclusions, alternative tools, and pricing. It equips an agent to decide correctly without requiring additional lookups or assumptions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a couple of query examples and lists POI categories, but does not materially expand on the parameter semantics already present in the schema. Examples like 'typical question' are helpful but duplicate what is already in the input_text field description. Thus, it meets baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('查询地区 POI 宏观计数指标' - query regional POI macro count indicators) and explicitly clarifies what it does not return (store names, coordinates), distinguishing it from poi_data_* tools. It provides concrete examples of queries, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

Clearly states when to use (for count/density/growth indicators) and when not to use (when detailed lists are needed), explicitly naming poi_data_* as the alternative. This provides the agent with actionable selection guidance beyond generic descriptions.

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