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

标注已指出 readOnlyHint=false 和 idempotentHint=false，描述进一步补充了‘属收费操作’及‘返回已扣费金额’这一重要行为信息，以及即将开放信用额度的说明，属于超出标注的有价值补充。但未说明具体费用多少、信用不足时的错误行为，也未解释为何非幂等。

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?

内容前置且关键信息（用途、参数、返回值、费用）都有涵盖，但双语重复阐述相同信息导致长度翻倍，末尾的信用额度发售推广语句与工具核心功能无关，可精简。

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?

无输出模式的情况下，描述提供了返回字段（found、档案、charged_cents）和费用提示，对仅2个参数的简单工具而言尚可。但 request_id 语义缺失、未说明信用不足错误，对于涉及付费的操作来说完整度仍有提升空间。

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?

模式描述覆盖率为0%，描述对 query 参数补充了三种可接受形式（名称、登记代码、店铺链接），但对 required 的 request_id 参数完全未解释其用途或格式，使其实际作用仍需猜测。

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?

明确指出是查找工厂（具体动词+资源），并列出了三种查询方式及返回值字段。虽然没有与其他兄弟工具直接对比，但兄弟工具中无同类工厂查询操作，区分度已足够。

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?

隐含了使用场景（需要查找公司档案时），并提到了会扣除信用额度，但未说明何时使用该工具而非其他工具、前置条件（如信用余额检查）或失败情况下的建议。

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