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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds a disclaimer (not investment advice) and clarifies scope (included and excluded indicators), which is useful. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, but given it is a query tool and no destructive hint is present, this is acceptable.

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 well-structured: main purpose, exclusions, indicator lists, non-included items, typical usage examples, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the core function and every section earns its place without redundant filler.

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 provides comprehensive context: scope, boundaries, typical queries, and pricing. It compensates for the large sibling set by clearly delineating what this tool covers and excludes.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds concrete examples for both parameters (e.g., country_name examples like 中国/美国/Japan/China, and company_name examples like 比亚迪股份有限公司/Tesla, Inc.) plus typical questions, which enriches the schema beyond the raw parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (capital brand recognition for a specific enterprise), and clearly lists the indicators (institutional shareholding concentration/stability, public fund count, average holding time). It explicitly excludes non-category indicators and batch filtering, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like enterprise_change_capital_brand_innovation or transparency tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool via typical question examples and explicitly states what it is NOT for (信息披露合规评价, batch filtering by park/industry chain). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of fully explicit alternatives.

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