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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the output is aggregated analysis (star ratings and indices) rather than detailed lists, and explicitly lists excluded data types. It also includes pricing information. It does not discuss errors or rate limits, but the behavioral contract is well covered.

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 structured into clear sections: core function, included metrics, exclusions, typical queries, and pricing. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers input constraints, output categories, exclusions, examples, and cost. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by providing typical example questions and clarifying that the address must be a specific locatable point, not a city or district name, and not overseas. This extra context helps the agent map natural-language queries to 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 clearly states the tool '查询其附近/周边的配套分析' for a specific China address, with explicit output categories (education/medical/shopping/transport star ratings and indices). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding housing prices, population counts, and detailed POI lists.

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 strong usage guidance: it requires a specific locatable address, forbids city/district names and overseas addresses, and gives typical question examples. It also lists exclusions ('不包含') that clarify when not to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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