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

The annotations only include openWorldHint: true, which is not about safety or side effects. The description does not disclose any behavioral details such as the meaning of '近两年' (is it fixed or based on current date?), whether the year parameter overrides this, potential error conditions, or data specificity. It also doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, but that's implied. This leaves significant gaps for a transactional query tool.

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 purpose, exclusions, and example questions. The inclusion of pricing at the end is extraneous but not harmful. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core function. It earns a 4 for being efficient without wasting words.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and typical usage. However, it omits clarification on the `year` parameter's role relative to '近两年', which is a notable gap. Also, it doesn't explain how the tool handles a missing `year` or what '近两年' means precisely. These gaps reduce completeness, but the tool is relatively simple and the description is adequate enough for a minimal viable understanding.

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 both parameters (park_name and year) are already documented. The description adds typical usage examples for park_name, but does not clarify the semantics of the optional `year` parameter (whether it specifies the statistical year instead of the default 'past two years'). Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description provides minimal added value on parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool queries the count of companies that have won tenders in the past two years based on a specific park name. It clearly distinguishes itself from list tools by stating it excludes company name details. Sibling tools like park_won_tender_company_list confirm the distinction. However, it does not mention the optional 'year' parameter's effect, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 questions and states exclusions (other classifications, list details), which indirectly guides usage. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over other count tools (e.g., park_company_num) or when to use the optional year parameter. There is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, though the focus on 'won tender' is implicit.

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