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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries most behavioral disclosure. It adds that this is a read-only query ('查询'), that results are periodic/change-oriented ('周期变化'), and that it costs 40 credits/run. It does not detail period granularity or missing-company behavior, but these are minor gaps.

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 front-loaded: purpose, scope, exclusions, and examples appear in a compact, structured format. No sentence is wasted, and the typical queries materially help invocation.

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 large sibling family and an output schema, the description covers purpose, metrics, exclusions, examples, and pricing. It does not explicitly specify a time period, but '周期变化' plus the output schema make the tool sufficiently selectable and invokable.

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 schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description reinforces the pairing of country/company with metrics via typical queries, but adds no semantic detail beyond 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 states a specific action ('按企业查询雇主品牌方面的周期变化') and enumerates exact metrics: training investment/time, promotion rate, and turnover rate. It also distinguishes itself from adjacent tools by explicitly excluding recruiting and satisfaction/engagement evaluations.

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 when-to-use context ('用于查询员工培训投入时长、晋升率与离职率') and when-not-to-use ('不用于是否开展招聘...不包含非本分类指标；按园区/产业链批量筛企业名单'). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools, so an agent must infer which sibling handles the exclusions.

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