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

Annotations only include an unclear 'openWorldHint' with no readOnly/destructive hints. The description's claim that it returns only counts is a behavioral statement that contradicts the actual list-returning function, making behavior opaque and misleading.

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 organized with sections but includes redundant phrasing and a contradictory clause. The typical questions list is helpful but could be more compact.

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 description fails to resolve the list/count contradiction, omits output format details, and does not mention any limitations or error conditions. It is incomplete for safe and correct invocation by an agent.

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?

The description gives examples for park_name but adds no meaningful detail for year beyond the schema. The contradictory statement about counts does not clarify parameter usage and may confuse whether year affects count vs list output.

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 states the tool queries high-tech enterprise lists by park name, but contains a contradictory phrase '仅返回数量不返回名单' (only returns count, not list), conflicting with the tool name and typical usage examples. This ambiguity undermines clarity.

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 questions are provided, but no explicit guidance distinguishes this from the sibling park_high_tech_company_num (count) tool. The contradictory 'only returns count' statement would mislead an agent into using it for counting instead of listing.

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