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

With only openWorldHint as an annotation, the description adds useful context by clarifying the metric and exclusions. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when the optional year is omitted or whether '当年' defaults to the current year.

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 front-loaded with the core query purpose and is compact. The exclusion note and examples are useful; the embedded pricing block is slightly extraneous but does not harm clarity.

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?

For a simple count-query tool with two parameters, an output schema, and clear examples, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit default behavior for the optional year parameter.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already described. The description adds example values via typical questions but does not provide significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: querying the count of companies deregistered in a given year for a specific park name. It also explicitly excludes company list details, which differentiates it from sibling tools like park_close_company_list.

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?

Typical question examples ('中关村软件园当年注销的企业有多少') make the intended usage clear. The '不包含' statement also tells the agent when not to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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