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

The description explains the core behavior (list of companies) and exclusions, but does not disclose details like pagination, sorting, or how the optional 'year' affects the default 'last two years' window. With only an openWorldHint annotation, the description partially carries the transparency burden but remains uninformative about runtime behavior or edge cases.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-liner, a list of included/excluded indicators, and example queries. Every sentence contributes value, and the exclusions prevent misinterpretation against sibling tools. No redundant or fluff content.

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?

For a list-retrieval tool with an existing output schema, the description adequately covers scope, exclusions, and usage examples. The main gap is the ambiguity around the 'year' parameter and its interaction with the stated '近两年' (last two years) default, which is not explained. Otherwise, it is quite complete.

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 full descriptions for both parameters (coverage 100%), so the description adds little beyond confirming park_name is the key entity. The typical questions reiterate how to use park_name but do not clarify the optional 'year' semantics (e.g., does it override the default 'last two years'?). This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 list of companies that initiated tenders in a specific park over the last two years. It provides concrete examples of typical questions, making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'park_issued_tender_company_num' by explicitly mentioning 'list' and excluding count-only results.

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 usage examples (e.g., '中关村软件园近两年发起过招标的企业名单') and clarifies what it does not include (other company categories, count-only returns). This implicitly differentiates it from count tools and other park category list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'chain_issued_tender_company_list' or when the optional 'year' parameter should be used.

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