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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=True, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful scope boundaries: what metric is counted, what is excluded, and representative queries. It does not fully clarify how the optional year parameter interacts with the '近两年' window, but this is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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 front-loaded: purpose, metric, exclusions, and typical questions are presented in a clear order. The pricing block is extra but potentially useful; there is no meaningful redundancy.

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 two-parameter count tool with an output schema and many sibling list/count tools, the description sufficiently defines scope, exclusions, and example queries. It lacks an explicit pointer to the list counterpart and precise year-window rules, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 describes both parameters with examples and 100% coverage. The description reinforces park_name specificity and the optionality of year, but adds no additional type, format, or range semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 enterprises that initiated tenders in the last two years for a specific park, naming the exact metric and explicitly excluding list details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like park_issued_tender_company_list and other park_*_num aggregation tools.

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 gives clear usage context through typical question phrasings and defines exclusions such as '其他企业分类的统计；企业名单明细'. However, it does not explicitly point to the corresponding list tool as the alternative when list details are needed.

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