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

The annotation only provides openWorldHint: true, which is broad. The description discloses that the tool covers specific POI categories and excludes unanswered count statistics, but it does not add details like response format, pagination, or dependency on data versions beyond the optional version parameter. It provides the pricing model which is extra context, bringing it to a mid-range score.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by coverage and exclusions, and ends with examples. The pricing appendix is not typical for a description and slightly adds non-essential detail, but the main text is well structured and relevant.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required), full schema coverage, and an output schema existing, the description adequately explains the domain, constraints (single region, no multi-region), and common use cases. It could add more on output content details, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters are well documented there. The description adds a clear enumeration of covered POI types (bank, office, industrial park, residential) and typical question phrasing, which complements the schema's poi_type examples. It does not add extra constraints or format details beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage, this is more than sufficient.

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 queries POI detail lists for finance/business and residential categories within a specified administrative region, listing bank, office building, industrial park, and residential community types. It distinguishes itself from adjacent POI topics (automotive, dining, etc.) by the domain coverage and nearby sibling tools like poi_data_shopping.

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 gives specific usage context with typical queries and notes that counting statistics are not answered but directs to a different metric (interest point quantity), which sets boundaries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond implying domain-specific POI categories, and lacks a clear 'when not to use' with alternatives.

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