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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the row count (5.1 万行) as a scale hint, but says nothing about permissions, whether pagination caps apply, or what the results look like. For an unannotated search tool this is a thin disclosure.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the facets; no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing field list is somewhat terse and could be more actionable.

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?

For a 5-param search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: purpose and queryable fields are covered. It falls short on usage context (when to pick this over get_company_detail) and any behavioral expectations.

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 all five parameters (limit, fields, offset, country, keyword) are already documented in the schema. The description names overlapping facets (keyword→公司名, country→注册地) but adds no syntax beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (检索) and resource (公司与机构), plus the backing table (rs_company) and dataset scale (5.1 万行). It even enumerates the searchable facets (中英文名、注册地、上市类型、母公司), so an agent knows what it can query. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling get_company_detail.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The obvious sibling get_company_detail (single-company lookup vs. this bulk search) is never referenced, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision on its own.

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