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

Although annotations only include openWorldHint, the description carries significant behavioral context by listing exactly which certification indicators are covered and which are excluded. The word '查询' also signals a read-style operation. It does not discuss output shape or refresh behavior in depth, but the output schema and indicator enumeration compensate.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is relatively long due to an extensive indicator list and some repetition of exclusion concepts. Most content is useful, though '不包含：非本分类指标' adds limited value.

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 complex certification-query tool with many possible indicators, the description is sufficiently complete: it gives scope, exclusions, covered metrics, and canonical examples. The presence of an output schema means detailed return fields need not be repeated in the description, and the tool is well-positioned among its siblings.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description goes beyond this by showing how country_name and company_name work together in realistic example queries (e.g., '美国Tesla, Inc.是否取得数据安全相关认证'), adding practical semantic grounding for both 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?

Description clearly states the tool's specific purpose: by company name/country, query certification-related status and changes (资质认证周期变化). It gives concrete indicators like ISO certifications, AEO, and construction qualification years, and explicitly distinguishes itself from batch-screening by qualification labels and financial-license queries. This strongly separates it from sibling enterprise_change_* and list 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('用于查询高新专精特新等资质、体系/等保认证及建筑资质等级等') and when not to use it ('不用于按资质标签批量筛选企业名单，也不用于金融牌照查询'; '不包含：非本分类指标；按园区/产业链批量筛企业名单'). It also provides typical question formats, which makes usage conditions very clear.

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