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

With only openWorldHint annotation, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by scoping the metric to '拥有软著的企业数量' and explicitly excluding other category statistics and company list details. This clarifies what the returned result will and will not contain, though it does not discuss edge cases like missing data.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence definition, metric type, exclusions, and representative questions. Every section contributes useful context, and there is no redundant repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clarifies scope, metric, exclusions, and common query phrasings, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both park_name and year. The description adds example values for park_name but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the count of enterprises with software copyrights (软著) for a specific park name. It further distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by explicitly stating it does not include an enterprise list (不包含：企业名单明细), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Typical question examples ('中关村软件园拥有软著的企业有多少') provide clear use-case context. The description also states what is excluded (other company categories and enterprise list details), implying when the count tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name the alternative list tool.

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