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

The description mentions '近两年' (last two years) and excludes other categories, but does not disclose whether results are limited by pagination, whether the park name must be exact, or whether the tool may return empty results. The openWorldHint annotation indicates the tool may return unknown extra fields, but the description does not elaborate on that.

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 includes examples, but the inclusion of pricing information is not standard for a behavioral description and may be unnecessary. The structure is clear but could be more focused on tool behavior rather than pricing.

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 output schema is present, so the description need not detail return values. However, the tool has only one required parameter and an optional year, but the description does not clarify how the year parameter interacts with the '近两年' scope (e.g., if year is provided, does it override the two-year filter?). This ambiguity could confuse agents.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (e.g., park_name as the park name, year as an optional year). The description adds context for typical values and the '两年' scope, but the schema covers the meaning sufficiently, so the description adds limited value beyond schema.

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 returns a list of companies that have made outward investments in the last two years, based on a specific park name. It includes example queries and explicitly distinguishes from other company categories, effectively differentiating from sibling tools like park_invested_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 typical query examples and states exclusions (does not include other categories, only returns list not count). It implies when to use this tool for list queries, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for counts (e.g., park_invest_company_num).

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