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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, so the description carries most of the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list (not a count), excludes other enterprise categories, and includes pricing (100 credits per run). It does not mention pagination or data completeness, but for a straightforward list query this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with clear sections (involved indicator, exclusions, typical questions, pricing). It is somewhat verbose but each part adds value, such as examples and the cost notice. No redundant filler 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 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the main purpose, what is excluded, example uses, and cost. It does not mention edge cases like unknown park names, but for a list-query tool with minimal state, the provided context is sufficient.

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 descriptions for both park_name and year. The description adds example park names and typical phrasings but does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 purpose: '基于具体园区名称拥有软著的企业列表查询' (query list of companies with software copyrights based on specific park name). It explicitly identifies the resource (enterprise list with software copyrights) and scope (specific park). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'num' tool by clarifying the return type is a list, not a count.

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 query phrasings like '中关村软件园拥有软著的企业名单' and explicitly excludes other categories and count-only behavior, helping the agent understand when this list tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., park_have_copyright_company_num or chain_have_copyright_company_list), but the examples and exclusions make the usage context reasonably clear.

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