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

无注释信息，描述仅说明返回企业列表，但未提及行为细节如排序方式、分页限制、数据更新时间或异常处理，对于代理而言行为透明度不足。

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，包含核心功能、指标类型、排除项和典型问法，但部分内容重复（如“涉及指标/类型”和“典型问法”中的示例），结构尚可，无明显冗余。

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?

输出schema未提供，但描述明确返回企业列表，结合参数和兄弟工具可推断输出为列表形式，足够满足基本使用，但未说明返回字段或数据结构，完整性中等。

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?

描述对两个参数均提供了说明：park_name（园区名称）和year（统计年份，可选），覆盖了参数含义和示例，但未说明year缺省时的默认行为（如默认近两年），语义基本清晰。

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?

描述明确说明该工具用于查询基于具体园区名称的近两年有对外融资的企业列表，动词为“查询”，资源为“企业列表”，且与兄弟工具中的计数版本（如park_invested_company_num）形成区分，目的清晰。

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?

描述中未明确说明何时使用此工具而非其他类似列表工具（如park_company_list），仅通过“不包含”说明排除了其他分类和仅返回数量的情况，但缺乏与替代工具的对比指引，使用时机不明确。

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