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

The description claims to exclude other enterprise classifications but then contradicts itself about return type. No annotations exist to clarify behavior. The internal inconsistency makes the tool's actual behavior opaque, and the description fails to disclose what it truly returns (list vs. count).

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 relatively concise with clear sections for scope, exclusions, and examples. However, the contradictory sentence ('仅返回数量不返回名单') detracts from structure and conciseness, requiring the reader to reconcile conflicting information. The pricing block appended is extraneous but not harmful.

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 tool lacks an output schema, so the description must clarify the return type. The description initially says it returns a list, but then states it returns only a count, leaving the return type ambiguous. This incompleteness prevents a user from knowing what to expect, especially when compared to the count-only sibling tool.

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 fully describes both parameters (park_name and year) with examples. The description adds typical park names, but no additional semantic details beyond the schema. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with only marginal added value from the examples.

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 states the tool queries A-level taxpayer enterprises by park name, which is clear. However, it includes a contradictory phrase '仅返回数量不返回名单' (only returns count, not list) that conflicts with the tool name and typical queries asking for a list, reducing clarity.

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 provides typical queries but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from alternatives like the similarly named 'park_a_taxpayer_company_num'. The contradictory statement about returning count instead of a list misleads usage, making it unclear when to use this list-oriented tool versus the count-oriented sibling.

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