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

The annotation only includes openWorldHint, which is minimal. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool doesn't answer statistical counts and mentions pricing details, but it does not disclose other behaviors like data coverage, update frequency, or response format. Since the annotation coverage is low, the description could do more, but it does add some useful caveats.

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 reasonably concise, with an initial sentence that captures purpose, followed by exclusions and examples. The pricing details are somewhat long but relevant. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the pricing block could be seen as extra length for an agent's quick understanding.

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 presence of an output schema (which reduces the need for return-value explanation), the description covers the core purpose, usage constraints, and non-goals effectively. It addresses the complexity of region-specific POI queries and provides examples. It lacks details on result format, but that is provided by the output schema, so completeness is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already defines each parameter clearly cable (e.g., gov_name, poi_type, input_text). The description adds little beyond the schema but reiterates the constraint of single region and candidate set limitation, which is helpful but not substantial. With high schema coverage, 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 it queries automotive-related POI lists (gas stations, charging stations, 4S stores) within a specific city or district, with the verb '查询' and explicit scope. It also differentiates from sibling POI tools (dining, shopping, etc.) and from statistical tools by stating it does not answer counts, providing clear purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: queries with clear city/district names regarding automotive POIs. It provides negative guidance: 'not for counts' and suggests the 'interest point count indicator' alternative. It also gives typical query examples ('某区加油站分布' etc.), making usage context very clear.

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