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

描述额外说明不包含其他企业分类统计，仅返回数量不返回名单（虽然这是列表工具，但实际描述是'仅返回数量'，可能矛盾，但注意名称是list，描述说仅返回数量，这可能是笔误或者描述错误，但不应扣分太多）。有openWorldHint注释，描述补充了返回内容限制。没有其他行为披露（如权限、分页等）。

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?

描述简洁，包含关键信息（用途、排除项、示例），并附有定价信息（虽然是额外的）。没有冗余内容，但可以更结构化。

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?

工具复杂度适中（2个参数，1个必须），有输出schema，描述提供了典型问法和排除项。但没有提及返回格式（如列表分页、排序等），不过输出schema已经覆盖返回结构。总体完整。

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?

参数含义在schema中已有明确描述（园区名称、年份），schema覆盖率为100%，因此描述无需额外补充。描述中未添加参数细节，但schema已足够，基线评分为3。

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?

描述明确说明是基于具体园区名称查询没有专利的企业列表，动词为查询，资源为园区内企业列表，且与同级工具（park_have_no_patent_company_num）区分，后者只返回数量。但描述中没有显式说明与chain_开头的兄弟工具的区别。

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?

描述提供了典型问法示例（中关村软件园没有专利的企业名单），并明确不包含其他分类统计。但没有显式提及何时使用该工具而非兄弟工具（如chain_have_no_patent_company_list），也没有排除性说明。

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