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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the metric and exclusions but does not clarify the interaction between the optional year parameter and the 'past two years' window, nor error handling. It's adequate for a simple count tool but lacks detail.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a clear statement of scope, exclusions, and typical queries, with no redundant content. Pricing info is appended but does not detract from clarity.

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 count tool, the description covers the metric, exclusions, and examples. It lacks explicit mention of default behavior without the year parameter and the output format, but those may be covered by the output schema. Overall, it's complete enough for typical usage, though the year ambiguity is a gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing park name examples and clarifying the metric. However, it does not explain how the optional year parameter affects the 'past two years' window, leaving ambiguity. Still, it enhances the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: querying the count of companies that have won tenders in a specific park within the last two years. It provides concrete examples and defines the metric, distinguishing it from list tools like park_won_tender_company_list.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating what is excluded (other company categories, list details) and giving typical questions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but clarifies that this returns a count, not a list, which differentiates it from sibling list tools.

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