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

Description discloses scoping constraints (single region only, no multi-region support), parameter precedence (extracts from input_text when gov_name/poi_type omitted), and explains client-side billing units. The openWorldHint annotation is complemented by detailed boundary conditions. Could mention output format/pagination, but the included context is substantive.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the core purpose, covers supported categories and exclusions, and finishes with pricing info. No wasted sentences, though the billing context could arguably be moved to annotations.

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?

Covers scope (regions), coverage (what POI types), exclusions (statistics queries — use different indicator), typical queries. Does not document output format or pagination, but with openWorldHint and no output schema, the description provides enough guidance for selection and basic invocation.

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 defining typical query phrasings and explicitly excluding statistics queries. However, it does not go beyond the schema to clarify how poi_type coding works (e.g., '地铁站' vs '150500'), and version parameter semantics could be clearer.

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 hotels and scenic spots within an administrative region, listing covered categories (star-rated hotels, budget hotels, parks, zoos, scenic areas). It explicitly excludes statistical counts and includes typical query examples, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like poi_data_* others and count-based 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?

Explicitly states what it does NOT answer (e.g., no hotel/park count statistics – direct users to 兴趣点数量指标), provides typical question patterns, and clarifies parameter usage (single region, extraction from input_text). This is strong guidance for selecting this tool over count-based siblings.

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