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

The description adds some behavior context by noting the scope ('近两年') and what is excluded, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the exact return format. The openWorldHint annotation provides minimal additional guidance, so the description carries moderate responsibility, which it partially fulfills.

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 somewhat repetitive, restating the purpose in the '涉及指标/类型' line and then providing examples. It is organized but could be more concise, with unnecessary duplication that does not add new information.

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 gives a clear idea of the query intent, but it lacks clarity on the interplay between '近两年' and the year parameter, and it does not mention pagination, error handling, or what happens if the park name is invalid. Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, but the observed gaps prevent a higher score.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (park_name and year). The tool description adds the '近两年' timeframe but does not clearly explain how the optional year parameter relates to that timeframe, leaving ambiguity. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds limited value beyond that.

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 queries a list of enterprises with external financing in the last two years for a specific park. It is distinguished from sibling tools like park_invested_company_num (count) and park_invest_company_list (companies that invest) by the focus on receiving financing and returning a 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 clarifies that it does not include other enterprise category statistics, and it returns a list rather than just a count (as implied by the examples). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other list-based park tools, though the context of 'external financing' helps differentiate.

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