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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the query is based on a specific park name and returns a list for the last two years, but it does not mention output format, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. The '仅返回数量不返回名单' phrase in '不包含' is confusing and may mislead — it contradicts the tool's list nature, though likely intended to clarify that this tool does not return just counts. This ambiguity reduces transparency.

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 with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for metrics, exclusions, and typical questions. The pricing note is extraneous but arguably useful for cost awareness. The '不包含' section is slightly redundant and confusing, but overall the structure 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 present and only 2 parameters, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality and typical usage. It mentions the time window, park requirement, and exclusion of other categories. The ambiguity in the '不包含' line (whether it returns lists or counts) is a gap, but the presence of example questions mitigates. Overall, complete enough for a simple list-query 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 schema already describes both parameters (park_name with examples, year as optional integer). The description adds that the query is scoped to '近两年' (last two years), which clarifies the default time window when year is not provided. It does not provide syntax or additional constraints beyond schema, but the context is helpful. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the added time-window semantics justify a 4.

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 the tool queries a list of companies that participated in tenders in the past two years for a specific park name. It distinguishes itself from siblings like park_participated_tender_company_num (count) and other park_*_list tools (e.g., park_issued_tender_company_list, park_won_tender_company_list) by specifying 'participated in tenders' and providing typical questions. The '不包含' section further clarifies scope, though slightly ambiguous.

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 includes typical query examples and states the fixed time window (近两年) and required park name. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for counts or other tender statuses (e.g., 'use park_participated_tender_company_num for counts'), leaving usage guidance implicit. The exclusion of 'other company classifications' hints at limits but without naming specific alternatives.

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