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

The description discloses that it returns a count and excludes list details, which is a behavioral scope. However, it doesn't elaborate on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what the openWorldHint annotation already suggests. It adds minimal extra context beyond the 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 concise and front-loaded: main function, exclusions, and examples in three short segments. No wasted words, and the pricing is separated. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 a simple count query with an output schema (not shown) and annotations. The description covers what it does, what it excludes, and typical usage. It lacks detail on edge cases like exact park name matching or zero-result handling, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete.

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% for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions '具体园区名称' which aligns with the park_name description, and the year is optional. It does not provide additional syntactic or format details, so it stays at baseline.

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 queries the count of enterprises with software copyrights for a specific park. It specifies the verb (查询/count), resource (拥有软著的企业数量), and distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool (park_have_copyright_company_list) by explicitly excluding detailed lists. Typical questions provide concrete usage examples.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating what is not included (other enterprise categories, detailed company lists), hinting that other tools should be used for those needs. The typical questions give clear context, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when to choose this over the list counterpart.

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