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

The description contains an internal contradiction regarding output: '仅返回数量不返回名单' suggests it returns a count, not a list, while the tool name and examples imply a list. This misleading statement fails to transparently describe the actual behavior. Annotations provide no behavioral context, so the burden falls entirely on the description.

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 short but includes irrelevant pricing information embedded in the text, which is noise. More critically, the contradictory sentence '仅返回数量不返回名单' creates confusion and undermines clarity. The structure is adequate but not clean.

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 provides typical question examples but lacks a clear explanation of the output format (list vs count) and does not elaborate on the optional year parameter. It is incomplete for a tool that needs to convey its exact purpose and scope, especially given the ambiguity around what it returns.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (park_name and year). The description's mention of '基于具体园区名称' reinforces park_name but adds no new details about year or parameter constraints. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 main statement '基于具体园区名称失信人企业列表查询' clearly identifies the tool as querying a list of discredited enterprises by park name. However, the contradictory phrase '仅返回数量不返回名单' (only returns count, not list) muddies the purpose, as it conflicts with the tool name and typical questions asking for the 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?

The description provides typical questions but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling list tools like park_discredited_company_num or other park_*_list tools. The statement '不包含：其他企业分类的统计' gives limited guidance on exclusions but lacks clear when-to-use alternatives.

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