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

The description attempts to disclose exclusions and return behavior ('仅返回数量不返回名单'), but this statement conflicts with the tool's list-oriented name and examples. With no readOnly/destructive annotations and only an openWorldHint, the description fails to give a trustworthy account of what the tool actually returns.

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 fairly short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it contains a contradictory sentence and an embedded Pricing block that does not help tool selection. It could be cleaner and more focused without the extraneous pricing metadata.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is close to adequate, but the contradictory return-behavior statement creates a critical gap. The agent cannot confidently determine whether to expect a list or a count, and no guidance is given for choosing between this tool and the corresponding '_num' sibling.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example park names in the typical question section, but it does not meaningfully enrich the year parameter or clarify the ambiguity around whether a count or a list is returned.

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 opening sentence and typical question examples clearly indicate a park-based query for tech-oriented SME lists, but the line '仅返回数量不返回名单' directly contradicts the tool name and the list-oriented examples, making the actual return behavior 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 gives typical question phrasings and says it is based on a specific park name, so the usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the closely related sibling 'park_tech_oriented_company_num' or other park/chain list variants, and the '不包含' line is confusing rather than a clear when-not-to-use guide.

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