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

The description adds the pricing information (100 credits per run) and clarifies the scope (list vs count, only copyright companies). The openWorldHint annotation provides minimal behavioral context, but the description does not disclose authentication, rate limits, or output format beyond the existence of a list. There is 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 relatively concise, leading with the purpose, then scope, then examples. The embedded pricing block adds some verbosity but is structured as a separate metadata segment. No redundant sentences.

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 is simple with two parameters and an output schema, but the description contains an ambiguous statement: '仅返回数量不返回名单' (only returns count, not list) which contradicts the tool's purpose and could mislead an agent. It also does not specify behavior when year is omitted or when no results exist. Given the output schema exists, return details are not required, but this inconsistency reduces completeness.

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%, with both parameters (park_name and optional year) described in the input schema. The description adds examples of park_name values but does not elaborate on year's usage or edge cases. It provides marginal added value 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 a list of companies with software copyrights (软著) based on a specific park name. It provides typical question examples and explicitly excludes other enterprise categories (e.g., patent, high-tech) and the count-only version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like park_have_copyright_company_num.

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 gives clear usage context through typical questions (e.g., '中关村软件园拥有软著的企业名单') and states what is not included ('不包含：其他企业分类的统计'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for count or other categories, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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