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

The annotation openWorldHint=true suggests the tool may return partial results, but the description does not mention this. It does state it 'only returns count, not list' (which is actually a restriction – interestingly, it says '仅返回数量不返回名单' but the tool is a list tool – this is contradictory). Wait, the description says '仅返回数量不返回名单' (only returns count, not list), but the tool name and purpose indicate it returns a list. This is a contradiction with the tool's purpose and likely a mistake. This deserves a low transparency score, but since annotations are not contradicted (openWorldHint is consistent), I score 2 due to misleading statement.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of '不包含' and '典型问法' provides useful guidance without excessive verbosity. However, the pricing information is appended but not essential, and the misleading statement about returning only counts is a flaw.

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?

The tool has a simple schema (2 params) but no output schema details. However, the description's statement '仅返回数量不返回名单' contradicts the tool's list-returning nature, which is a significant gap for a list tool. The description does not clarify whether the list is a list of company names or objects, nor does it mention pagination or result details. This is incomplete for a list-returning 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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about '当年' (current year) and typical examples, but the schema already provides examples for park_name and explains year. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: to query the list of companies that were deregistered in a specific park for a given year. It specifies the resource (company list) and the operation (query by park and year), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'park_close_company_num' (which returns counts) and 'chain_close_company_list' (which is chain-based).

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 typical query examples and clarifies the scope (specific park, specific year). It implies when to use this tool (when a list of closed companies is needed for a park) versus alternatives (e.g., for counts use 'park_close_company_num'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative. This is close to a 5 but lacks explicit exclusion.

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