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

With only openWorldHint: true annotation and no readOnly/destructive hints, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose exclusions (e.g., other enterprise classifications) and mentions pricing, but the misleading statement '仅返回数量不返回名单' contradicts the expected behavior of a list tool. This confuses the agent about what the tool actually returns, making behavioral transparency poor.

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 relatively concise, with bullet points and examples, but it includes a contradictory statement about returning counts versus lists, which adds confusion rather than clarity. The pricing line is extra but not harmful. Overall structure is acceptable but the contradiction undermines conciseness.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers the main type and exclusions, but the contradiction about return format (list vs. count) is a critical gap. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still fails to provide a coherent understanding of what the tool returns and what it excludes, especially given the openWorldHint annotation that could imply unexpected results.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters: park_name ('园区名称，如「中关村软件园」「张江高科技园区」「苏州工业园区」') and year ('统计年份，如 2024；可选。'). The description adds typical question examples but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Given high schema coverage, a 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 states '基于具体园区名称当年新增的企业列表查询' (query list of newly added enterprises based on specific park name), which clearly indicates a list query. However, it then contains the phrase '仅返回数量不返回名单' (only returns quantity, not list), which contradicts the tool name and the expected purpose. This internal contradiction severely muddies the tool's actual function.

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 user questions like '中关村软件园当年新增的企业名单' but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., park_new_start_company_num or chain_new_start_company_list). It does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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