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

The description discloses what the tool returns (macro statistics) and what it excludes (specific points), which is useful transparency. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or read-only behavior, though the tool name 'query' implies it. Since annotations are minimal (openWorldHint only), the description carries the burden but is adequate.

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 concise, with two clear paragraphs: one for functionality and one for pricing (ignored for scoring). It avoids redundancy, uses bullet-like structure, and includes a pointer to the sibling tool. No fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's purpose, coverage, exclusions, and typical usage. Since there is no output schema provided, the description gives a sufficient high-level understanding of what results will look like (macro statistics). It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it, though it could specify result format or examples of output.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving example queries ('某区早高峰通行速度') that clarify the intended use of input_text, and it hints at parameter interactions. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 regional transport macro statistics, listing specific metrics (bus lines, peak speed, rail/flight throughput). It explicitly distinguishes from poi_data_transport by stating it does not return specific point locations, making its purpose distinct among siblings.

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?

It provides explicit usage examples (e.g., morning peak speed in a district, airport throughput TOP cities) and directly states when NOT to use it (for specific points, use poi_data_transport). This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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