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

The only annotation is openWorldHint:true, which is not contradicted. The description adds important behavioral context: it returns aggregate statistics, not raw lists, and clarifies that the address must be a specific point. It also discloses pricing (100 credits per run). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects, though '查询' implies read-only.

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 relatively long but well-structured: it starts with the core function, then clarifies exclusions, provides examples, and ends with pricing. Each section earns its place—the examples are particularly useful for agent usage. Slight verbosity could be trimmed, but it's not excessive for the tool's complexity.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return format. It covers the primary use case, constraints on inputs, and what is not included. The tool has only two required parameters, both well-documented. The description provides typical query examples and category breakdowns, making it adequately complete for an agent.

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% and both parameters have detailed descriptions. The description adds value by emphasizing that the address must be a specific location (not a city/county name) and provides examples of valid addresses. This guidance goes beyond what the schema states, helping the agent correctly populate the 'address' parameter.

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 purpose: to query surrounding shop statistics (counts by category) for a specific address in China. It specifies the resource ('店铺统计'), the verb ('查询'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding detailed lists and other data types (e.g., companies, real estate). Examples of typical queries reinforce the purpose and differentiate from tools like business_surrounding_company.

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 provides clear usage context: must be a specific addressable point in China, not a city/county name, and excludes detailed shop lists. It gives typical query formats and explicitly states what is NOT included (e.g., business/individual counts, housing prices). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded use cases, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison with siblings.

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