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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the openWorldHint annotation: it lists covered POI categories, explicitly states it does not return counts, and notes the requirement for an explicit municipal or district name. While it does not mention pagination or data freshness, the provided context is valuable and consistent with annotations.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose, then covers exclusions, examples, and pricing. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete given the tool's complexity. It explains the scope, what is not answered, provides typical query formats, and mentions pricing. The presence of output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description covers the core behavioral and usage aspects thoroughly.

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 the description appropriately relies on the schema for parameter details. The description adds implicit context (e.g., the need for a clear region name) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's own 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 function: querying detailed lists of public and government POIs within a specified administrative region. It names specific coverage (government agencies, police stations, public toilets) and explicitly excludes count statistics, which distinguishes it from sibling POI 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context with typical question examples and a clear when-not: 'does not answer quantity statistics' and directs users to use '兴趣点数量指标' (POI count metric) instead. This is strong guidance on selecting the correct tool among many similar POI siblings.

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