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

Annotations include openWorldHint=true, indicating the tool may return unexpected data. The description adds that it counts companies over the last two years and excludes other categories, which provides some context. However, it doesn't disclose specifics about the time window (e.g., rolling two years vs. fixed year), or potential variations in count methodology, which would be useful given the open-world hint.

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 concise, with a clear core statement, exclusions, and example questions. It front-loads the purpose and keeps the structure organized with bullets. It is not overly verbose and covers key aspects without redundancy. Minor improvement could be made by trimming the pricing information, which is not part of the tool description.

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?

Given the tool is a count query with a simple schema and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the scope, excludes other categories, and provides examples. However, it could benefit from explaining the relationship between the 'year' parameter and the 'recent two years' window, especially since the year parameter is optional, to avoid ambiguity about what data will be returned.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds example values for park_name and implies the year is optional, but it does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as how the year parameter interacts with the implicit 'recent two years' window. Baseline 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 the tool counts companies that participated in tenders for a specific park over the last two years. It distinguishes from sibling tools like park_participated_tender_company_list by clarifying it returns a count, not a list, and excludes other company categories. The verb 'query' and resource 'park participated tender company count' are specific and matches the name.

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 user questions and clarifies that it does not include other company categories or detailed lists. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like park_company_num or chain_participated_tender_company_num. The exclusion of list details hints at the alternative list tool, but it is not explicitly named.

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