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

The annotation openWorldHint indicates potentially broader results than exact input, but the description does not elaborate on this behavior. It does state what is included and excluded, but lacks details on matching logic or result format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, with clear structure: purpose, included metrics, exclusions, and typical queries. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, no need to describe return format. The description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and usage examples, making it sufficient for a simple count query 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds concrete examples for park_name (e.g., '中关村软件园') and clarifies the optional nature of year implicitly. This enhances schema meaning by providing realistic input formats.

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 that the tool queries the number of companies in a specific park ('基于具体园区名称企业数量查询'), with typical question examples. It also distinguishes from list tools by explicitly excluding company name lists ('不包含：企业名单明细').

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 explicit exclusions, stating it does not include statistics for other company categories or detailed lists, which helps agent decide against using it for those cases. However, it does not name alternative tools directly, but the typical questions give context for when to use this tool.

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