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

With only openWorldHint annotation present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful constraints: requires a single clear administrative region, covers specific medical POI categories, does not answer counts, and explains pricing is per region×type rather than per row. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 and front-loaded: function, coverage, exclusions, examples, then pricing. The pricing JSON adds useful cost semantics and is not wasteful, though it slightly increases length.

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 a present output schema, 100% schema parameter coverage, and the tool's relatively simple list-query nature, the description is complete enough. It covers scope, exclusions, typical usage, and billing model. It could name direct alternatives more explicitly, but the sibling list and tool name provide sufficient context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces tool-level intent and gives typical phrasings, but it does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for input_text, gov_name, poi_type, and version.

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 identifies the verb and resource: '查询该行政区范围内的医疗保健 POI 明细列表' (query medical/healthcare POI detail lists within an administrative region). It also distinguishes itself from count-style sibling tools by explicitly stating it does not answer counts and by listing covered POI subtypes.

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 gives clear usage context: requires a municipal or district-level administrative region and is intended for medical POI list/detail queries. It also provides an explicit exclusion ('不回答医院/药店数量') and directs count-related needs to a different metric, though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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