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

The annotation only includes openWorldHint, which is not a detailed behavioral indicator. The description conveys the core behavior (count query) but does not disclose potential side effects, data source, or edge-case behavior. With minimal annotation coverage, more transparency would be beneficial, though the tool is inherently a read-only query.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, exclusions, examples). The inclusion of pricing information is extraneous but does not harm clarity. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 simple count query tool with a well-defined schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it excludes, and how to phrase queries. It lacks detail on behavior like empty results or year handling, but these are implied by the schema. The description is sufficient for its complexity.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters (park_name and year). The description adds example park names and clarifies the metric, but provides no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema. The examples are mildly helpful but do not significantly enhance understanding.

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 specifies a clear purpose: to query enterprise count based on a park name. It explicitly states the metric/type (企业数量) and excludes other categories and list details, distinguishing it from sibling list tools and category-specific count 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 provides typical query examples (中关村软件园企业有多少) and states what is not included (其他企业分类统计; 企业名单明细), implicitly guiding when to use alternatives like park_company_list or park_*_num category tools. However, it does not explicitly name specific alternative tools.

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