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

The description provides extensive detail about the output field set, including status flags like whether the company is revoked, abnormal, or a credit-losing party. It also discloses per-run pricing, which is beyond what annotations supply. The query semantics imply a read-only operation, and no contradiction with the openWorldHint annotation exists.

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 front-loads the primary action and then provides a long but purposeful enumeration of returned fields. While the field list is extensive, it directly informs the agent about the tool's output scope and pricing, so the length is justified rather than wasteful.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies the exact input requirement, lists the output dimensions, and notes the cost. It does not discuss error cases or exact-match behavior, but these are not critical for this simple tool.

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?

The only parameter, company_name, is already fully described in the input schema with an example and required designation. The tool description adds little about the parameter itself beyond restating that a clear company name is needed, so it does not significantly improve on the schema.

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 queries basic company information by a specified company name, and enumerates the specific information dimensions returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_data_search or search_company_candidates, which focus on broader search or candidate matching.

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 phrase '基于明确指定的企业名称' establishes the key usage context: this tool is for looking up a company when its exact name is already known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the implied boundary against search-oriented sibling tools is clear enough.

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