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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral scope by stating it returns counts only and excludes company list details and other classification statistics. The pricing block also transparently discloses the per-run credit cost of 100, which is useful operational context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scoped exclusions, example questions, and pricing. Each section earns its place, though the pricing JSON adds some tail length. It is reasonably concise and structured for quick agent scanning.

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 and openWorldHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the park-name basis, optional year via schema, scope exclusions, and cost. It could be more explicit about the park-vs-chain distinction, but the park-specific naming and examples make the context clear.

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 baseline is 3. The description's typical questions provide example park_name values, but these largely mirror the schema examples already given. It does not add new semantic detail for the year parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: "基于具体园区名称科技型中小型企业数量查询" (query count of tech-oriented SMEs by park name). It clearly identifies the metric, excludes non-related statistics and company-level details, and provides typical question phrasings, which distinguishes it from sibling list/count 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 context for when to use this tool via the indicator type "科技型中小型企业数量" and explicitly states what it does NOT include: "不包含：其他企业分类的统计；企业名单明细." However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like the list-returning sibling, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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