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

The description discloses that it returns a count and explicitly excludes lists and other classifications, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not clarify interaction with the optional year parameter (e.g., whether it defines the two-year window) or any other behavioral aspects like read-only nature or data freshness. With only openWorldHint annotation present, the description carries some burden but adds only moderate value.

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 core description is concise, starting with purpose, then exclusions, then examples. It is well-structured and front-loaded. The pricing JSON adds extra but non-harmful content. Overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema provided, return format is handled. The tool is simple (count with two params), and the description covers purpose, exclusions, and typical queries. However, the missing clarification on year parameter semantics and the exact time window logic is a notable gap, preventing a perfect 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both park_name and year are described. The description reinforces the meaning of park_name through examples and mentions the two-year window, but it does not explain how the optional year parameter affects the query, leaving ambiguity about time filtering. Since schema already covers basics, the baseline of 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 it queries the count of companies in a specific park that have had external financing in the last two years, with a specific verb (查询) and resource (企业数量). It also explicitly excludes other classification types and list details, distinguishing it from list tools and other park_*_num variants like park_invest_company_num.

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 three typical question examples, giving clear usage context. It also states what is not included ('不包含：其他企业分类的统计；企业名单明细'), which implicitly guides against using it for lists or other metrics, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like park_invested_company_list.

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