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

The annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of clarifying behavior. It discloses that this is a query tool returning only a count and explicitly says it does not return enterprise lists or other classification statistics. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides concise boundaries and typical queries. The three example questions are slightly redundant, but the overall structure is compact and easy for an agent to parse.

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?

For a simple two-parameter count query with an output schema and clear exclusion notes, the description is largely complete. It lacks an explicit alternative-name mapping to park_have_patent_company_list or chain_have_patent_company_num, but the tool name and scope notes make the intended usage sufficiently clear.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%: both park_name and year are already described with examples and optionality. The description adds some typical question phrasing and examples, but does not materially add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb, resource, and scope: it queries the count of enterprises with patents for a specific park name. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list-type tools by saying '不包含企业名单明细', which helps separate it from sibling tools like park_have_patent_company_list.

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 clear context through '典型问法' examples and explicitly scopes the output with '不包含：其他企业分类的统计；企业名单明细'. It gives enough signal for an agent to know when to use this count tool rather than a list tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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