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

The only annotation is openWorldHint: true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints: it requires a single explicit administrative region, covers only shopping-related POI categories, refuses count questions, and pricing is disclosed. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by coverage, exclusions, examples, and pricing. The pricing JSON adds length but is valuable billing context. Overall it is reasonably concise and well-organized, though the pricing block could arguably be separated or shortened.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description covers the domain, constraints, exclusions, and billing model. It is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool, though explicit differentiation from nearby POI category tools (e.g., poi_data_life_service) would make it stronger.

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%, with detailed descriptions for input_text, gov_name, poi_type, and version, including extraction fallback behavior. The description adds typical question examples but does not materially extend beyond what the schema already documents for parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '查询...购物 POI 明细列表' within a city/district administrative area. It specifies covered POI subtypes (超市、商场、购物中心、便利店、专卖店) and typical query phrasings, distinguishing it from sibling POI tools by its shopping-specific scope.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for shopping POI detail lists based on an explicit city/district name. It also gives an explicit when-not case: it does not answer count/statistics questions and directs users to an interest-point quantity indicator. However, it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool for that count scenario.

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